Department of Corrections v Williams

[2018] NZHC 92

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2016-044-003470 [2018] NZHC 92

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

v

ADRIENNE NATALIE WILLIAMS

Hearing:	9 February 2018
Counsel:	SA Wilson for the Crown LO Smith for Defendant
Judgment:	9 February 2018

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:

Meredith Connell, Auckland. LO Smith, Auckland.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v WILLIAMS [2018] NZHC 92 [9 February 2018]

[1]      Ms Williams, as you will recall, on 11 July 2017 I sentenced you to a term of six months’ home detention in relation to a number of offences.  The most significant of those was the offence of possession of material intending it be used for the manufacture of methamphetamine.

[2]      The Department of Corrections applies to cancel your sentence and substitute a term of imprisonment.  The application is based on changed circumstances.  It is common ground your circumstances have changed: on 14 December 2017 Odyssey House advised the Department you were being expelled from its programme.  There remains a measure of disagreement in relation to the extent to which you complied with the programme’s rules, and extent to which you benefited from the programme.

[3]      Since then you have spent approximately two months in custody.  It follows you served a term of four and a half months’ home detention, and more recently, two months’ imprisonment.

[4]      The Department contends I should cancel the sentence and substitute a fresh sentence of imprisonment, which would probably result in you being incarcerated until March or April of this year.

[5]      In  thorough,  careful  and  helpful  written  submissions,  Ms Wilson  for the Department observes that pre-sentence detention is irrelevant to today’s exercise.  I accept that analysis.  However, s 80F(4) of the Sentencing Act 2002 provides that in these circumstances, a Judge may do a number of things. And one thing a Judge may do is cancel the sentence and not impose a fresh one.

[6]      I consider that outcome is commensurate with the interests of justice.  I reach this conclusion because:

(a)       You served much of the original sentence.

(b)      You  also  served  a  term  of  two  months’  imprisonment  over  the

Christmas period.

(c)      While there is disagreement as between the parties as to the extent of your progress, my impression is that you have benefited from your experience within the programme.

(d)An additional period of imprisonment, while available as a matter of principle, may act to counteract the advances you have made, however modest.

(e)      Most significantly, the time you have served to date is broadly commensurate with the original sentence imposed.

[7]      For these reasons, I cancel the sentence of home detention to which you were subject. And, I impose no fresh sentence.  It follows your sentence expires today.

[8]      It should be obvious you have been the beneficiary of a merciful response. You may wish to reflect on that in the days and months to come.

……………………………..

Downs J