Codlin v R - [2012] NZCA 71

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA493/2011
[2012] NZCA 71

BETWEEN SANDI NESTA CODLIN
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

CA570/2011

AND BETWEEN RODERICK GEORGE LEONARD
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

Hearing: 20 February 2012

Court: Randerson, Potter and Simon France JJ

Counsel: N G Cooke for Ms Codlin
Mr Leonard in Person
K A L Bicknell for Respondent

Judgment: 7 March 2012 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AMr Leonard’s appeal is allowed. The sentence of two years seven months and two weeks imprisonment is quashed. A sentence of two years three months imprisonment is imposed on each offence (selling cannabis and possession of cannabis for supply), to be served concurrently.

B Ms Codlin’s appeal is dismissed.

C The forfeiture orders made by Wylie J are confirmed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Potter J)

Introduction

Roderick Leonard pleaded guilty on 7 March 2011 to charges of selling cannabis and possession of cannabis for supply respectively under s 6(1)(e) and (f) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. Sandi Codlin pleaded guilty on 24 March 2011 to a charge of possession of cannabis for supply under s 6(1)(f). The maximum sentence for each conviction is eight years imprisonment.
The District Court declined sentencing which was transferred to the High Court at Whangarei. On 26 July 2011 Wylie J sentenced Mr Leonard to two years seven months and two weeks imprisonment on each offence to which he had pleaded guilty, the sentences to be served concurrently. The Judge imposed a sentence of one year seven months imprisonment with release conditions on Ms Codlin.[1]
[1] R v Codlin & Leonard HC Whangarei CRI-2011-088-814, 26 July 2011.
The Judge ordered forfeiture of the drugs and drug related paraphernalia found at the property in Hikurangi, near Whangarei where the appellants were living. He also ordered the forfeiture of the sum of $1970 found at the property, having determined on the balance of probabilities that it was derived from the commission of the offences of which the appellants were convicted.
Mr Leonard and Ms Codlin appeal their sentences on the ground that they are manifestly excessive.

Background facts

On 28 February 2011 police executed a search warrant at the address where the appellants were living in Hikurangi, near Whangarei. Both were at home. The search revealed the following items:
(a)A security monitor camera;
(b)A cannabis pipe and a half-used cannabis tinnie;
(c)Two notebooks – which the police described as “tick lists”;
(d)A plastic snap-lock bag containing approximately 2.2 grams of cannabis, found in Ms Codlin’s handbag;
(e)A plastic snap-lock bag containing approximately 8.3 grams of cannabis, found in Ms Codlin’s underwear drawer;
(f)Cash totalling $1,970 in $50 and $20 note denominations;
(g)Electronic scales;
(h)Two plastic snap-lock bags containing two cannabis tinnies (1.6 grams of cannabis), and the other 25 cannabis tinnies (20.2 grams of cannabis). Mr Leonard attempted to throw these snap-lock bags over a neighbour’s fence immediately prior to the police entering the property, but police retrieved them;
(i)A small…

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 Codlin v R

Details

AGLC: Codlin v R [2012] NZCA 71
Case: [2012] NZCA 71
Decision Date: 7 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand dealt with appeals from Roderick Leonard and Sandi Nesta Codlin against their sentences for drug-related offences. Roderick Leonard pleaded guilty to selling and possessing cannabis for supply, while Sandi Codlin pleaded guilty to possessing cannabis for supply. The District Court transferred sentencing to the High Court, where the Judge imposed sentences of two years seven months and two weeks, and one year seven months imprisonment, respectively. Both appellants appealed, arguing their sentences were manifestly excessive.

The Court considered several grounds of appeal, including the starting point for sentencing and the uplift for previous offending. The Court found the starting point and uplift for Leonard's sentence were excessive, reducing the uplift to three months. Regarding Codlin's sentence, the Court found the starting point was not excessive and dismissed her appeal. The Court also rejected new evidence presented by Codlin, finding it inconsistent and not credible.

Ultimately, the Court allowed Leonard's appeal, reducing his sentence to two years three months imprisonment for each offence, to be served concurrently. Codlin's appeal was dismissed, and the forfeiture orders made by the sentencing Judge were confirmed.

Orders