Growcott v The Queen - [2015] NZHC 920

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2014-418-000012 [2015] NZHC 920

HAYDEN GROWCOTT

v

THE QUEEN

Hearing: 29 April 2015

Appearances:

J D Lucas for Appellant
D J Orchard for Respondent

Judgment:

5 May 2015

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

[1] Mr Growcott has appealed against the cumulative sentences of two years six months’ imprisonment on seven charges of offering to supply methamphetamine1 and two years five months’ imprisonment on two charges of wilful ill-treatment of animals.2 He also appeals against the concurrent sentences of six months imprisonment on two charges of receiving property,3 one charge of possessing a cannabis plant4 and one charge of possessing utensils for cannabis.5 He is thus appealing against an effective sentence of four years 11 months’ imprisonment.

[2] Those sentences were imposed in the District Court at Greymouth on

20 November 2014.6 At the same time, fines of $14,302.86 were quashed. In lieu of

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (2)(a).
2 Animal Welfare Act 1999, s 129(1)(a).
3      Crimes Act 1961, ss 246 and 247.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(a) and 7(2)(b).
5      Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(3).
6      Police v Growcott DC Greymouth CRI-2014-018-339, 20 November 2014.

GROWCOTT v R [2015] NZHC 920 [5 May 2015]

those fines, Mr Growcott was sentenced to a further three months’ imprisonment. The Judge also banned him for life from owning animals pursuant to s 169(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 1999. He does not appeal against those sentences.

[3] Pursuant to s 244 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, Mr Growcott is able to bring this appeal as of right. This Court must only allow the appeal if satisfied that:7

(a) For any reason, there is an error in the sentence imposed on conviction;

and

(b) A different sentence should be imposed.

Background

[4] In April 2013, Mr Growcott agreed with an associate, the employee of a farmer at Inchbonnie, that the employee would steal a 2010 Suzuki quad bike valued at $7,000 from the farmer and Mr Growcott and this associate would sell it for
$2,500. Mr Growcott received that quad bike as planned and sold it for $1,300. He later agreed to give his associate $750 in cash and three quarters of a gram of methamphetamine for the stolen quad bike.

[5] Between 23 April 2013 and 1 May 2013, a mountain bike valued at $2,500 was stolen from the rear of a shop in Greymouth. On 22 May 2014, a search warrant was executed at Mr Growcott’s partner’s address in Cobden, Greymouth. Several parts from the stolen mountain bike were located at the address.

[6] During the course of the investigation into the burglary, the police captured text messaging to and from the defendant. That text messaging revealed his dishonesty offending was motivated by an underlying drug habit which also involved the supply and distribution of methamphetamine. The sentencing Judge summarised
the offending as follows:8

On that cellphone there were seven occasions when you offered to…

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 Growcott v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Growcott v The Queen [2015] NZHC 920
Case: [2015] NZHC 920
Decision Date: 5 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hayden Growcott appealed against his sentence for drug-related and animal cruelty offences. The appeal was against the cumulative sentences of two years six months' imprisonment for offering to supply methamphetamine and two years five months' imprisonment for wilful ill-treatment of animals, which resulted in an effective sentence of four years 11 months' imprisonment. The High Court examined whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive or if there was any material error in the sentence that warranted a substitution.

The Court found no material error in the sentence imposed for the drug-related and dishonesty offences, noting that the starting point for the methamphetamine offences was within the appropriate range. The Court also held that the District Court Judge was correct in not reducing the sentence on account of Growcott's youth, as his drug-related offending was well-established and acknowledged. The Court further concluded that the sentence for the animal cruelty offences was appropriate, considering the severity of the offences and the level of sadism involved. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the District Court was upheld.

Orders