Caie v Police HC Auckland CRI-2011-404-332 - [2011] NZHC 1956

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2011-404-332

AARON PAUL CAIE
Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent

Hearing: 6 December 2011

Counsel: N Thinn for Appellant
B Hamlin for Respondent

Judgment: 6 December 2011

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF LANG J [on appeal against sentence]

CAIE V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC AK CRI-2011-404-332 6 December 2011

[1] Mr Caie pleaded guilty in the District Court to an indictably laid charge of cultivating cannabis. The maximum penalty for that offence is seven years imprisonment. The District Court elected to retain jurisdiction over Mr Caie and not to commit him to this Court for sentence. As a result, the maximum penalty the sentencing Judge was entitled to impose upon him was one of two years imprisonment.

[2] Judge Johns declined to sentence Mr Caie to home detention and sentenced him to 18 months imprisonment.[1] Mr Caie now appeals against the Judge’s decision not to impose a sentence of home detention.

Background

[1] R v Caie DC Pukekohe CRI-2011-057-469, 15 August 2011

[3] At the time of the offending, Mr Caie was living on a rural property near Onewhero. The property is in a remote location and is surrounded by native bush, scrub and pine forests.

[4] In December 2010, a police helicopter observed a cannabis plot near the house in which Mr Caie was then living. Between February and 1 March 2011, the police installed covert cameras in order to conduct surveillance of the plot. This showed Mr Caie visiting the plot on a regular basis to tend the cannabis plants growing within it.

[5] On 2 March 2011, the police executed a search warrant in respect of Mr Caie’s address and the surrounding land. When they searched the house, they found a number of firearms and a quantity of ammunition. They also found a sectioned-off area in the house that had been used to grow cannabis plants from seedlings before being planted outdoors. The room had been specially adapted for this purpose. The police found heat lamps, power transformers and air ducting in various locations within the house. A water hose coming up through the floor was also attached to the inside wall of the room.

[6] When the police searched the wider property, they found a reasonably sophisticated cannabis plot containing 43 cannabis plants. All of the plants were in good condition, and varied in height from 1 to 1.7 metres. The plot was surrounded by a six wire fence, which had been electrified via a 12 volt car battery. Watering facilities had also been provided to the plot by means of a gravity fed water supply.

[7] When the police confronted Mr Caie about what they had found, he frankly admitted that the plants were his. He said that he had been growing the cannabis for his personal consumption.

The Judge’s decision

[8] The Judge concluded that Mr Caie’s offending fell within the category of low level commercial cultivation identified in R v Terewi[2]She did not accept that…

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 Caie v Police HC Auckland CRI-2011-404-332

Details

AGLC: Caie v Police HC Auckland CRI-2011-404-332 [2011] NZHC 1956
Case: [2011] NZHC 1956
Decision Date: 6 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Caie v Police HC Auckland CRI-2011-404-332 involved Mr Caie who appealed against his sentence for cultivating cannabis. The maximum penalty for the offence was seven years imprisonment, however, the District Court retained jurisdiction over Mr Caie and limited the maximum penalty to two years imprisonment. The District Court Judge sentenced Mr Caie to 18 months imprisonment, but Mr Caie appealed the decision, arguing that the Judge should have imposed a sentence of home detention. The appeal was heard on 6 December 2011 and the Court upheld the appeal, reducing the sentence to 16 months imprisonment.

The legal issue in the case was whether the District Court Judge erred in not imposing a sentence of home detention on Mr Caie. The Court had to consider whether the sophisticated nature of the cannabis growing operation, the lack of remorse shown by Mr Caie, and the dim prospects of rehabilitation justified a sentence of imprisonment. The Court also had to consider whether Mr Caie's domestic circumstances could be taken into account in sentencing.

The Court held that the sophistication of the cannabis growing operation, Mr Caie's previous conviction for cultivating cannabis, and the lack of remorse shown by Mr Caie justified a sentence of imprisonment. The Court also held that Mr Caie's domestic circumstances could only be given limited weight in cases involving serious drug offending, but that the sentence could be reduced slightly to reflect it. The Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment by two months to leave an end sentence of 16 months imprisonment.

In conclusion, the Court upheld the appeal and reduced the sentence of imprisonment to 16 months. The Court held that the sophisticated nature of the cannabis growing operation, the lack of remorse shown by Mr Caie, and the dim prospects of rehabilitation justified a sentence of imprisonment. The Court also held that Mr Caie's domestic circumstances could only be given limited weight in cases involving serious drug offending, but that the sentence could be reduced slightly to reflect it. The existing sentence of 18 months imprisonment was accordingly quashed, and a sentence of 16 months imprisonment was imposed in its place.

Orders