Hassall v Police - [2018] NZHC 487

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2017-425-52

[2018] NZHC 487

BETWEEN
JASON RAYMOND HASSALL

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 14 March 2018

Appearances:

F C D More for Appellant

S N McKenzie for Respondent

Judgment:

21 March 2018

JUDGMENT OF NICHOLAS DAVIDSON J

Introduction

[1] Mr Hassall was sentenced by the District Court Judge to 22 months imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to one charge of manufacturing a Class B controlled drug, namely cannabis oil.1 He appeals that sentence on the grounds it is manifestly excessive. In particular, he says the starting point of 27 months adopted by the Judge was outside the available sentencing range.

[2]For the reasons that follow, the appeal is allowed.

1 Police v Hassall [2017] NZDC 22774.

HASSALL v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZHC 487 [21 March 2018]

The offending

[3] Mr Hassall took approximately one pound of cannabis leaf to his niece’s rented room at a boarding house in Invercargill in which approximately 40 persons lived. He started cooking it to produce cannabis oil. This produced a strong chemical smell and the manager in the boarding house feared there was a methamphetamine lab in operation. The premises and a nearby school were cleared, and there was a HAZMAT response. When Police arrived Mr Hassall admitted cooking the leaf to produce cannabis oil.

[4] To his credit Mr Hassall was candid and admitted that he cooked cannabis oil regularly for people who provided the leaf. He would take half the oil by way of payment. He is addicted to cannabis. He acknowledged he sold some for $20 per capsule, to fund his next batch of leaf. He had about 8 mls of oil, worth approximately
$150 to $160.

District Court sentence

[5] The Judge noted Mr Hassall’s criminal history, including two convictions for production of cannabis oil in 2011 and a number of convictions for possession of cannabis, most recently in 2017. He has 15 drug related convictions, going back to 1996. The convictions include:

(a)Possession of cannabis oil in 2011 – six months imprisonment.

(b)Production of cannabis oil in 2011 – six months imprisonment.

(c)Cultivation of cannabis in 2011 – one year and four months imprisonment.

(d)Production of cannabis oil in 2011 – six months imprisonment.

(e)Production of cannabis oil in 2010 – one month imprisonment.

(f)Cultivation of cannabis in 2004 – community work.

(g)Cultivation of cannabis in 1998 – periodic detention.

[6] The probation report referred to Mr Hassall’s “positive beliefs around his continued involvement with cannabis” which led the report writer to conclude he is at a high risk of reoffending, but a low risk of harm. He is ambivalent about any change in his lifestyle, and has no or little insight into his offending and why he might change his ways.

[7] Although no address was available, Mr Hassall’s counsel sought leave to apply for home detention. The Judge was of the view that “the purposes and principles…

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 Hassall v Police

Details

AGLC: Hassall v Police [2018] NZHC 487
Case: [2018] NZHC 487
Decision Date: 21 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hassall v Police involved an appeal by Jason Raymond Hassall against his sentence of 22 months imprisonment for manufacturing a Class B controlled drug, specifically cannabis oil. Hassall contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive, primarily because he believed the starting point of 27 months was outside the available sentencing range. The appeal was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Invercargill Registry. The legal issues revolved around the appropriateness of the starting point for the sentence and whether the overall sentence was within the acceptable range under the relevant sentencing principles.

The court examined the case law on cannabis-related offending, noting the broad sentencing range available to judges. It considered the nature and scale of the offending, the degree of commerciality, and the relevance of previous convictions. The court found that while Hassall's actions posed a risk to the residents of the boarding house and necessitated a hazardous materials response, the amount of cannabis oil produced and the rudimentary equipment used indicated a less severe level of offending. The court determined that a starting point of 18 months would have been more appropriate, with a six-month uplift for previous convictions, leading to a final sentence of 18 months. This was deemed a more proportionate and consistent approach with the sentencing principles and relevant case law.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence of 22 months was replaced with one of 18 months. The court emphasized the importance of consistency in sentencing and the need to ensure that sentences are proportionate and justifiable under the law.

Orders