Box v Police - [2018] NZHC 286

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2017-070-34 [2018] NZHC 286

BETWEEN
REBECCA NICOLE BOX

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 22 February 2018

Appearances:

B J Hesketh for Appellant O M Salt for Respondent

Judgment:

1 March 2018

JUDGMENT OF PAUL DAVISON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 February 2018 at 11am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Tauranga

BOX v POLICE [2018] NZHC 286 [1 March 2018]

Introduction

[1]Rebecca Box has been convicted of the following offences:

(a)possession of a Class A drug, namely methamphetamine;1

(b)failing to appear in court (x 2);2

(c)driving while disqualified (x 2);3

(d)possession of a Class C drug, namely cannabis;4 and

(e)giving false details as to her own identity.5

[2] She was sentenced to a total period of four months’ imprisonment with six months of standard and special release conditions.6 Ms Box now appeals against that sentence on the grounds that home detention should have been imposed and the special release conditions relating to alcohol were inappropriate.

[3] Since being sentenced on 6 October 2017, Ms Box has completed serving her sentence of imprisonment and has been released. As a consequence, the issues raised by this appeal are effectively moot, although Mr Hesketh for Ms Box submits that a decision by this Court would nevertheless provide valuable guidance to the District Court in relation to future cases where the same or similar issues arise.

The offending

[4]The offending arose out of several discrete incidents.

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(a); maximum penalty six months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $1,000.
2      Bail Act 2000, s 38(a); maximum penalty one year of imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $2,000.
3      Land Transport Act 1998, s 32(1)(a); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $4,500, and mandatory disqualification from driving for six months or more.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act, s 7(1)(a); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $500.
5      Land Transport Act, s 44; maximum penalty a fine not exceeding $10,000.
6      Police v Box [2017] NZDC 22914.

[5] On 19 May 2016, police executed a search warrant at an address that Ms Box was visiting in Mount Maunganui. Police located half a gram of methamphetamine in Ms Box’s handbag.

[6] Ms Box was disqualified from driving for a period of nine months commencing on 9 February 2016. On 15 August 2016, she was stopped while driving by police as part of a routine traffic stop. It was then discovered that she was disqualified from driving.

[7] On 10 October 2016, at about 2.00am, Ms Box was stopped by police while driving because one of her headlights was not working. When asked to provide details of her identity, she gave a false name and birthdate. At the time she was found to have in her possession five grams of cannabis packaged…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Box v Police

Details

AGLC: Box v Police [2018] NZHC 286
Case: [2018] NZHC 286
Decision Date: 1 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Box appeals against her conviction and sentence. She was convicted of possession of a Class A drug, namely methamphetamine; failing to appear in court (x 2); driving while disqualified (x 2); possession of a Class C drug, namely cannabis; and giving false details as to her own identity. She was sentenced to a total period of four months’ imprisonment with six months of standard and special release conditions. Ms Box appeals against her sentence on the grounds that home detention should have been imposed and the special release conditions relating to alcohol were inappropriate. The appeal raises two issues: whether the Judge erred in refusing to impose a sentence of home detention and whether the Judge erred in imposing a release condition not to consume alcohol without there being any foundation. The Court considers that the Judge erred in his reasoning in reaching his conclusion that a sentence of imprisonment was required because converting the total sentence of imprisonment to home detention on the usual basis would produce a sentence which was too short to be helpful in terms of the appellant’s rehabilitation. The Court considers that a sentence of home detention would have been the least restrictive outcome that was appropriate in this case. The appeal is therefore allowed and the sentence of imprisonment is quashed and replaced with a sentence of three months’ home detention. The nine-month disqualification from driving imposed by the Judge will remain in place.

Orders