Crighton v R - [2018] NZHC 3282

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CRI-2018-442-15

[2018] NZHC 3282

BETWEEN
LEANNE MAREE CRIGHTON

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 12 December 2018

Appearances:

A J D Bamford and E J Riddell for the Appellant K Peirse-O’Byrne for the Respondent

Judgment:

12 December 2018

JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

[1] Ms Crighton was sentenced to 22 months’ imprisonment on 6 August 2018 by Judge Zorhrab in the District Court at Nelson.1 Ms Crighton had pleaded guilty, following a sentencing indication, to the following charges:

(a)one charge of disorderly behaviour;2

(b)one charge of driving while disqualified;3

(c)eleven charges of offering to supply methamphetamine;4

(d)three charges of supplying methamphetamine;5

1      R v Crighton [2018] NZDC 16378.
2      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 3; maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
3      Land Transport Act 1998, s 32(1)(a) and (3); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (2); maximum penalty life imprisonment.
5      Section 6(1)(c) and (2); maximum penalty life imprisonment.

CRIGHTON v R [2018] NZHC 3282 [12 December 2018]

(e)one charge of possessing methamphetamine;6

(f)one charge of possessing a methamphetamine pipe;7

(g)one charge of possessing a knife;8 and

(h)one charge of breach of community work.9

[2] Ms Crighton appeals her sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive, either because the starting point was too high, or because a larger discount should have been provided for her personal circumstances.

Summary of offending

[3] Ms Crighton was sentenced as part of Operation Tulip, a Police investigation targeting the commercial supply of methamphetamine in and around Nelson. As part of that investigation, Police executed a production order on Ms Crighton’s cell phone between 11 October 2017 and 30 November 2017. This revealed several text messages indicating that Ms Crighton had supplied or offered to supply a total of 3.75 grams of methamphetamine on 14 separate occasions.

[4] On 7 December 2017, Police executed a search warrant at Ms Crighton’s home address. During the search, Police found three methamphetamine pipes, three sets of digital scales, various utensils commonly used to weigh methamphetamine, approximately 0.1 grams of methamphetamine and a stun gun. Ms Crighton was initially charged with possession of a restricted weapon in relation to the stun gun, but that charge was later dropped.

[5] Additionally, on 9 September 2017, Ms Crighton had gone to an address to confront its occupants about her suspicion that they had stolen some of her property. When she arrived outside the property, Ms Crighton started yelling and swearing loudly at the occupants. As a result of this behaviour, the occupants armed themselves

6      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(a) and (2); maximum penalty six months’ imprisonment.
7      Section 13(1)(a) and (3); maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment.
8      Crimes Act 1961, s 202A(4)(a); maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
9      Sentencing Act 2002, s 71(1)(f); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.

with weapons, including a knife. Ms Crighton was hit on the head with a…

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 Crighton v R

Details

AGLC: Crighton v R [2018] NZHC 3282
Case: [2018] NZHC 3282
Decision Date: 12 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Leanne Maree Crighton appeals against her sentence for multiple drug-related charges, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The District Court sentenced her to 22 months' imprisonment, considering the seriousness of her crimes and her personal circumstances. The High Court assessed whether the sentence was erroneous and if a different sentence should be imposed.

The appeal focused on the starting point for sentencing and the discount for personal mitigating factors. Counsel argued that the starting point was too high and the discount too small, given Crighton's circumstances. The High Court rejected these arguments, finding the starting point and discount were within the acceptable range under the law. The amount of methamphetamine involved, 3.75 grams, was in the upper half of the relevant band in R v Fatu, warranting a starting point between two and four years. The discount for personal circumstances, while arguably on the lower end, was within the acceptable range.

The appeal against the sentence was dismissed, with the Court satisfied that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The Court noted that while Crighton's personal circumstances were severe and played a role in her offending, they did not justify a significantly lower sentence.

Orders