Department of Corrections v Rattray

[2020] NZHC 1416

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-1997-404-734210

[2020] NZHC 1416

BETWEEN

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Applicant

AND

HEATH MATTHEW JAMES RATTRAY

Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	J Parry for the Applicant
Judgment:	22 June 2020

JUDGMENT OF GAULT J

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 June 2020 at 4:45 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Solicitors:

Mr J Parry, Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland Copy to:

The Respondent

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v RATTRAY [2020] NZHC 1416 [22 June 2020]

[1]        The Crown’s 1998 application for review of sentence requires determination following Mr Rattray’s appearance at the District Court in Hamilton on 3 June 2020.

Background

[2]        On 4 July 1997, following a  conviction  for  manufacturing  cannabis  oil,1 Mr Rattray was sentenced in this Court to 18 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months on condition that Mr Rattray complete a three month residential term at Serenity House to undergo their treatment programme and thereafter remain under supervision for the deferred period.2

[3]        On 19 May 1998 a Probation Officer filed an application under ss 64(1)(b) and 65(5)(c) of  the  Criminal  Justice  Act  1985  for  the  review  and  substitution  of Mr Rattray’s sentence alleging that Mr Rattray had completed the three-month residential programme at Serenity House on 6 October 1997 but he was not complying with the conditions and requirements of his sentence and that another sentence should be substituted. Mr Rattray had failed to report to his Probation Officer. A warrant was issued on 10 June 1998.

[4]        Twenty-two years later, on 3 June 2020, Mr Rattray made a voluntary appearance at the District Court in Hamilton (where he has active charges). He was taken into custody on the 1998 warrant. Hinton J made an order cancelling the 1998 warrant later that day. Mr Rattray was remanded at large, to appear on 23 June 2020 for a review of the 1997 sentence.

Crown’s position

[5]        Mr Parry, for the Crown, submits that this Court should dismiss the application for review of the sentence. He acknowledges that the sentence expired over 21 years ago, and that Mr Rattray did complete the three-month residential drug treatment programme. Further, he notes that the provisions under which the application was made have been repealed; he is unaware of any transitional provisions under which this Court could carry out its usual assessment regarding cancellation or substitution.

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(b) and (2)(b).

2      R v Rattray HC Auckland S37/97, 4 July 1997.

He submits that examining the reasons for Mr Rattray’s failures to report two decades later would serve no public interest, and likely be of no benefit to Mr Rattray personally. The Department of Corrections concurs.

Result

[6]        Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction to review the sentence imposed in 1997, I agree with the Crown that it would serve no public interest to do so in the circumstances, particularly given the time that has elapsed since the sentence and application for review.

[7]The application to review the sentence is dismissed.

Gault J