Cooper v Police - [2014] NZHC 3343

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2014-463-74 [2014] NZHC 3343

BETWEEN
ELAINE SOPHIE COOPER

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 15 December 2014

Appearances:

M J Hine for Appellant
A Hill for Respondent

Judgment:

19 December 2014

JUDGMENT OF LANG J [on appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 December 2014 at 3 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

COOPER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 3343 [19 December 2014]

[1] Ms Cooper pleaded guilty in the District Court to a charge of being in possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of supply. On 2 October 2014, Judge Spear sentenced Ms Cooper to one year eight months imprisonment.1 She appeals to this Court on the basis that the Judge erred in principle in imposing a sentence of imprisonment, and that he ought to have sentenced her to home detention instead.

Background

[2] The charge was laid after the police executed a search warrant at a residential address in Tokoroa on 19 March 2014. The address was that of Ms Cooper’s partner, who fled from the scene when the police arrived. Ms Cooper remained at the address whilst the police searched it. During the search the police found cannabis and weapons, as well as paraphernalia associated with commercial dealing in methamphetamine.

[3] The police searched Ms Cooper. They found three small zip lock bags containing methamphetamine concealed in her clothing and her purse. Two of these were hidden in Ms Cooper’s bra, whilst the third bag was found in a compartment in her purse. The total weight of methamphetamine within the three bags was 4.66 grams. The police also found a small quantity of new zip lock bags in Ms Cooper’s handbag.

The hearing in the District Court

[4] At sentencing, Ms Cooper’s counsel provided the Judge with an explanation for the fact that Ms Cooper had been found in possession of the methamphetamine. He told the Judge that the methamphetamine in question belonged to Ms Cooper’s partner, and that she had endeavoured to hide it in order to protect him when the police arrived to search the house. The Judge viewed this explanation with a considerable degree of scepticism given the fact that Ms Cooper had exercised her
right not to advance this explanation to the police at the time of her arrest. The

1 New Zealand Police v Cooper DC Rotorua CRI-2014-077-290, 2 October 2014.

Judge observed that Ms Cooper had a relatively lengthy period of involvement with drugs, albeit not methamphetamine. He said it would be “extraordinary” if Ms Cooper did not know exactly what was happening in the house, and if she was not involved in some way in her partner’s activities. The Judge therefore said he would sentence Ms Cooper on the basis that she was in possession of 4.66 grams of methamphetamine, and that the drug was intended for the purposes of supply generally on the streets.

[5] The Judge…

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 Cooper v Police

Details

AGLC: Cooper v Police [2014] NZHC 3343
Case: [2014] NZHC 3343
Decision Date: 19 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Cooper v Police, Elaine Sophie Cooper appealed against a sentence of imprisonment imposed by the District Court. Cooper had been found in possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of supply, and was sentenced to one year and eight months imprisonment by Judge Spear. The appeal was based on the argument that the Judge erred in principle by imposing a sentence of imprisonment, and that a sentence of home detention would have been more appropriate. The appeal was heard in the High Court of New Zealand Rotorua Registry, and was dismissed by Justice Lang.

The legal issue before the court was whether the Judge erred in principle by imposing a sentence of imprisonment, and whether a sentence of home detention would have been more appropriate. The court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing under the Sentencing Act 2002, and whether the Judge had erred in principle in imposing a sentence of imprisonment. The court also considered whether the sentence imposed was plainly wrong.

The court found that the Judge had not erred in principle in imposing a sentence of imprisonment. The court noted that Cooper had a history of drug-related offending, and that she was found in possession of a considerable amount of methamphetamine. The court also noted that other indicia of drug dealing activity were found in the house, and that Cooper had chosen to associate with persons who were involved with methamphetamine in commercial quantities. The court concluded that the Judge was well entitled to treat the offending as sufficiently serious to warrant a sentence of imprisonment rather than home detention.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders