Cropper v Police - [2016] NZHC 2779

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-404-149 [2016] NZHC 2779

BETWEEN
MARC ADAM ROBERT CROPPER

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 18 October 2016

Appearances:

P Davey for the Appellant
H Clark for the Respondent

Judgment:

21 November 2016

JUDGMENT OF EDWARDS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Edwards on 21 November 2016 at 12.30 pm, pursuant to
r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:

Solicitors: Crown Solicitors, Auckland
Counsel: P Davey, Auckland

CROPPER v POLICE [2016] NZHC 2779 [21 November 2016]

Introduction

[1] Mr Cropper pleaded guilty to three charges of possessing methamphetamine.1

He was sentenced to nine months supervision, a $300 fine and court costs of $130. Mr Cropper appeals the Judge’s dismissal of his application to be discharged without conviction.2

Offending

[2] The charges arose out of police surveillance of a number of people believed to be involved in the distribution of methamphetamine. One of those people was Mr Cropper’s neighbour, Mr Vernon.

[3] Intercepted communications revealed that Mr Cropper had obtained methamphetamine from Mr Vernon on 19 June, 20 June and 6 July 2015. The total amount purchased was two and a half grams. Mr Vernon was on home detention at the time. Mr Cropper would purchase things Mr Vernon needed such as food, cigarettes and glass tubing in exchange for the methamphetamine.

Personal circumstances

[4] Mr Cropper is 42 years of age. At the time of the offending he was a senior associate at a large law firm specialising in information technology and telecommunications. His employment has now ended.

[5] Mr Cropper began to use methamphetamine during a period of high stress at work and in his personal life. Prior to his arrest, he was attending CADS to address alcohol use and addiction to other substances. Following his arrest, Mr Cropper continued with CADS counselling, including participating in an intensive out-patient programme. He also attended Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous up
to five times a week.

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(a). The maximum penalty is six months’ imprisonment or a
$1,000 fine.
2 Police v Cropper [2016] NZDC 8848.

[6] At the time of sentencing he had been accepted for an 18 week Higher Ground drug rehabilitation course. By the time of the hearing of the appeal that course had been completed successfully. That is a significant achievement as evidence before the Court suggests that only 50 per cent of those who enrol in the course eventually complete it.

[7] The lack of employment has taken a toll on Mr Cropper and his family. Mr Cropper is currently on a sickness benefit. Mr Cropper’s partner has previously been the primary caregiver for their two children and is expecting a third child in January. She has been diagnosed with significant health issues which appear to have been caused, at least in part, by the stress resulting from Mr Cropper’s offending. She is not in a position to earn income to support the family.

[8] Financially,…

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 Cropper v Police

Details

AGLC: Cropper v Police [2016] NZHC 2779
Case: [2016] NZHC 2779
Decision Date: 21 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Marc Adam Robert Cropper appealed against the decision of Judge Ryan in the Auckland District Court to dismiss his application to be discharged without conviction for three counts of possessing methamphetamine. The offending arose from police surveillance of a number of people believed to be involved in the distribution of methamphetamine. Intercepted communications revealed that Cropper had obtained methamphetamine from his neighbour, Mr Vernon, on three occasions in June and July 2015. The total amount purchased was two and a half grams. At the time of sentencing, Cropper had been accepted for a Higher Ground drug rehabilitation course. By the time of the hearing of the appeal, Cropper had successfully completed the course. The lack of employment has taken a toll on Cropper and his family. He is currently on a sickness benefit. His partner has previously been the primary caregiver for their two children and is expecting a third child in January. She has been diagnosed with significant health issues which appear to have been caused, at least in part, by the stress resulting from Cropper's offending. She is not in a position to earn income to support the family. Financially, Cropper and his partner are now at a point of selling the family home as they are unable to service the mortgage. It is the impact of a conviction on future employment prospects that is at the heart of the appeal. The High Court dismissed the appeal. Edwards J found that the consequences of conviction were significant but not so disproportionate to the gravity of the offence that a discharge without conviction should be granted. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders