Hughes v The Queen - [2015] NZHC 2181

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CRI-2015-412-000028 [2015] NZHC 2181

BETWEEN
KATRINA MARY HUGHES

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: 10 September 2015

Appearances:

D More for Appellant (by way of AVL) R Smith for Respondent

Judgment:

10 September 2015

ORAL JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

Issue

[1] The appellant, Mrs Hughes, after a guilty plea was convicted in the District Court on certain drug charges. She now appeals against one aspect of the sentencing decision of Judge Phillips, given in the District Court at Dunedin on 27 August
2015.1 Specifically, she appeals against the condition imposed by His Honour which

prohibits her from associating with her husband, Mr Christopher Harrington.

Background

[2] As to the background in this matter, the appellant pleaded guilty to three representative charges of supplying drugs. One concerned a Class B drug (Ritalin), and two concerned Class C drugs (codeine and cannabis, respectively). For the first
representative charge she was sentenced to nine months home detention, and for

1 R v Hughes [2015] NZDC 17265

each of the latter two charges she was sentenced to three months home detention. The sentences were to be served concurrently.

[3] In the District Court, the Judge summarised his sentencing determinations as follows:2

On the charge under charging document 3429 the charge of supplying to unknown persons Ritalin, you are sentenced to home detention for a period of nine months. That is an extremely lengthy period but I see no other way around the situation. Special conditions will be as I detailed in the pre- sentence report for January 2015:

(a) You will not be in the possession of or consume alcohol or illicit drugs at any time while on home detention.

(b) You will attend any treatment and/or counselling for alcohol and/or drug dependency as recommended and directed by the probation officer. In other words you will do as you are told.

(c) You are not to associate with any persons as directed by the probation officer.

(d) I specifically add the condition that you are not to associate in any manner during your home detention sentence with Christopher Harrington, unless specifically authorised by your supervising probation officer in writing.

[4] Mrs Hughes appeals now against condition (d) noted above, the non- association condition with her husband, Mr Harrington.

The Law

[5] Turning now to the law with respect to this matter, the basis for a Court to impose a sentence of home detention lies in s 80A of the Sentencing Act 2002 (which is referred to hereafter as “the Act”).

[6] The ability to impose conditions on sentences of home detention is provided in s 80D of the Act. That section relevantly reads:

2 Above at [30]

Special conditions of sentence of home detention

(1) In addition to the standard conditions that apply under section 80C, the court may, subject to subsections (2), (3), and (7), impose 1 or more special conditions described in subsection (4).

(2) A court may impose any of the special…

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 Hughes v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hughes v The Queen [2015] NZHC 2181
Case: [2015] NZHC 2181
Decision Date: 10 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Mrs Katrina Mary Hughes appeals against a condition of her sentence imposed by Judge Phillips in the District Court at Dunedin. Mrs Hughes was convicted of drug charges and was sentenced to concurrent terms of home detention. The condition she appeals against prohibits her from associating with her husband, Mr Christopher Harrington, unless authorised by her supervising probation officer. The central issue before the court was whether the non-association condition imposed on Mrs Hughes was lawful under the Sentencing Act 2002. The court considered the purposes for imposing special conditions under section 80D of the Act, which include reducing the risk of further offending, facilitating rehabilitation, and aiding reintegration. Mrs Hughes argued that the condition lacked a rational connection to any of these purposes and was thus unlawful.

The court found that Judge Phillips did not provide explicit reasons for imposing the non-association condition and that the matter was not raised in argument before sentencing. The appellant's counsel did comment on the matter in written submissions, suggesting that Mrs Hughes would not receive a non-custodial sentence if she resided with her husband but did not concede that further association would be inappropriate. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that any restriction on a person's liberty must be accompanied by cogent reasons. The appellant argued that her husband's presence would aid her rehabilitation, while the Crown argued that his history of violence would increase the risk of reoffending. The court found that without more specific reasons, there was insufficient rational connection between the non-association condition and the purposes outlined in section 80D(2) of the Act.

The court concluded that the non-association condition was unlawful and quashed it. The remaining conditions of the sentence were upheld, and the sentence was not otherwise altered. The judgment underscores the need for clear reasoning when imposing special conditions on a sentence and the importance of ensuring that any restriction on a person's liberty is justified by a rational connection to the purposes of sentencing.

Orders