Clement v Police

[2025] NZHC 587

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2025-488-000010

[2025] NZHC 587

BETWEEN

KARLY RENEE CLEMENT

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:

20 March 2025

Counsel:

S Thode for Appellant

AJ Goodwin for Respondent

Judgment:

20 March 2025

ORAL JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Whangārei. Thode Utting, Auckland.

CLEMENT v POLICE [2025] NZHC 587 [20 March 2025]

[1]                 Between 10 September 2024 and 9 October 2024, Karly Clement offered to supply methamphetamine on 10 occasions. The total amount was 3.35 grams, worth approximately $1,650. Ms Clement declined to provide Police the PIN to her phone. She did, however, acknowledge the offending on arrest. Ms Clement said she would buy methamphetamine for her and another to feed their addiction.

[2]                 Judge P Rzepecky correctly observed the case fell within band one of the Court of Appeal guideline judgment in Zhang v R,1 which attracts starting points of up to four years’ imprisonment, or at the other end of the spectrum, a community-based sentence. The Judge said if a sentence of imprisonment were imposed, it would be between six and nine months. However, the Judge did not impose a prison sentence. Instead, he imposed five months’ community detention and a 12-month term of supervision. The Judge was plainly concerned to provide Ms Clement a second chance by imposing a rehabilitative sentence with a protective framework and a modest punitive element.

[3]                 The  Judge’s  sentencing  remarks  identify  his  position.  He  considered   Ms Clement had a drug problem and was “remorseful”.2 The Judge was particularly troubled at the prospect of Ms Clement not being able to look after her four children if she went to prison. He told her, “You have got to start putting them first”.3

[4]                 Ms Clement appeals. On her behalf, Ms Thode contends that the sentence of community detention is erroneous, and that this aspect of the sentence should have been community work. Ms Thode also argues the curfew requirements are excessive in the circumstances.

[5]                 In support of these contentions, Ms Thode argues the Judge’s discussion of the facts implied a level of commerciality that was not present. Ms Thode also contends the Judge failed to adequately recognise all mitigating factors including time on remand and difficult conditions of bail. Ms Thode notes correctly, the Judge did not identify a starting point so that his methodology is a little opaque.

1      Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507, [2019] 3 NZLR 648.

2      Police v Clement [2025] NZDC 4810 at [10].

3 At [11].

[6]                 I am unable to accept the sentence is manifestly excessive. The Judge treated Ms Clement sympathetically. He was clearly anxious about her position and the impact of sentencing upon her family. The Judge’s treatment of the case is commensurate with that of the Court of Appeal in Crighton v R,4 which was one of the cases in issue in Zhang. It is also commensurate with a decision of this Court in Edgecombe v R,5 which Mr Goodwin on behalf of the respondent brought to the Court’s attention.

[7]                 I acknowledge Ms Thode’s concerns about the punitive element to the sentence, but the Judge cannot be criticised for that. The offending could have attracted a sentence of imprisonment, but the Judge appropriately stepped back from that. There is, with respect, no basis upon which the outcome could be impugned.

[8]The appeal is dismissed.

……………………………..

Downs J

4      Crighton v R [2020] NZCA 33.

5      Edgecombe v R [2024] NZHC 2099.