Griffin v The Queen - [2021] NZHC 3317

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2021-463-137

CRI-2021-463-138 [2021] NZHC 3317

BETWEEN
TROY GRIFFIN

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 30 November 2021

Appearances:

S Mills for the Appellant L Evans for the Crown

Judgment:

6 December 2021

JUDGMENT OF MUIR J

This judgment is delivered by me on 6 December 2021 at 3:30 pm.

.....................................................
Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Lance Lawson, Rotorua
Gordon Pilditch, Crown Solicitors, Rotorua

GRIFFIN v R [2021] NZHC 3317 [6 December 2021]

Introduction

[1] Mr Troy Griffin appeals against his sentence of five years’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Cooper in the Rotorua District Court on 27 January 2021 in respect of the following charges:1

(a)being in charge of a motor vehicle with blood containing evidence of a controlled drug and causing injury (x 2);2

(b)unlawfully taking a motor vehicle;3

(c)failing to stop to ascertain injury;4

(d)dangerous driving;5

(e)driving while disqualified (third or subsequent);6

(f)possession of cannabis;7

(g)breach of release conditions;8

(h)breach of community work;9

(i)possession of methamphetamine for supply;10 and

(j)supplying methamphetamine.11

1      R v Griffin [2021] NZDC 20051 [Sentencing notes].
2      Land Transport Act 1998, s 61(2)(b): carrying a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 226(1): carrying a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
4      Land Transport Act, s 36(1)(c): carrying a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.
5      Section 35(1)(b): carrying a maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.
6      Section 32(1)(a) and (4): carrying a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.
7      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(a): carrying a maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.
8      Sentencing Act 2002, s 96(1): carrying a maximum penalty of one year’s imprisonment.
9      Section 71(1)(a): carrying a maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.
10     Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(1)(f) and (2)(a): carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
11     Section 6(1)(c) and (2)(a): carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

[2] The appellant also faced a further charge of wilful damage as a result of slashing the tyres of his partner’s vehicle.12 His appeal is advanced on the basis that the starting point for the charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply and supplying methamphetamine was too high; the discount for personal mitigating factors should have been applied to all of the offending, rather than just the methamphetamine charges; there should have been a discrete discount for remorse and steps taken towards rehabilitation; and there should have been a totality adjustment. The result it is suggested is an end sentence which was manifestly excessive.

[3]I turn now to the facts of the offending.

The offending

Taupō offending

[4] All but the methamphetamine charges and the single charge of wilful damage arose out of what has been called the Taupō offending.

[5] The appellant is a disqualified driver having received six previous convictions for driving while disqualified. In June 2019 (less than a year before the present offending), he had been sentenced to imprisonment for one…

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 Griffin v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Griffin v The Queen [2021] NZHC 3317
Case: [2021] NZHC 3317
Decision Date: 6 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Troy Griffin appealed against his sentence of five years' imprisonment imposed by Judge Cooper in the Rotorua District Court on 27 January 2021 for various charges, including being in charge of a motor vehicle with drugs in his system and causing injury, unlawfully taking a motor vehicle, dangerous driving, driving while disqualified, possession of cannabis and methamphetamine, and breaching release conditions. The appeal was based on the claim that the starting point for the methamphetamine charges was too high, the discount for personal mitigating factors should have been applied to all charges, a discount for remorse and steps towards rehabilitation should have been made, and a totality adjustment should have been applied. Griffin's lawyer submitted that the starting point for the methamphetamine charges should have been 18 months' imprisonment and that the discount for personal mitigating factors should have been applied to all charges. The lawyer also argued that there should have been a further discrete discount for remorse and steps towards rehabilitation, and a totality adjustment to ensure the total period of imprisonment was not wholly out of proportion with the gravity of the offending. The Crown submitted that the starting point for the methamphetamine charges was well within the range available to the Judge, and there was no causal nexus between Griffin's upbringing and the Taupō offending. The Crown also argued that there was insufficient nexus between Griffin's actions and his personal circumstances to justify a discount, and no discrete discount for remorse or rehabilitation was available. The Crown further submitted that the end sentence of five years' imprisonment was demonstrably justified. The court assessed the starting point for the methamphetamine charges as well within range, but agreed with Griffin's lawyer that any discount for factors personal to Griffin should have been applied in respect of all of the offending. The court also found that no discrete discount for remorse or rehabilitation was appropriate and that the final sentence was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders