JANINE MOANA HALL AND THE KING - [2024] NZHC 2587

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2024-419-0077 [2024] NZHC 2587

BETWEEN
JANINE MOANA HALL

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 9 September 2024

Appearances:

G A Walsh for appellant LSP Glaser for respondent

Date of judgment:

9 September 2024

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

This reasons for judgment was delivered by me on 9 September 2024 at 3.00pm.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:
G A Walsh, Barrister, Hamilton Hamilton Legal, Hamilton

HALL v R [2024] NZHC 2587 [9 September 2024]

[1] Janine Hall appeals the 31 May 2024 decision of Judge T V Clark in the District Court at Hamilton,1 sentencing her to four years’ imprisonment on pleading guilty to possession of methamphetamine for supply.2 At its remote hearing this morning, I dismissed the appeal, with reasons to follow in writing. These are those.

Background

[2] Ms Hall was actively involved as a “street level methamphetamine dealer” in what the Judge described as “a highly organised commercial drug dealing operation” in the Waikato region in mid-2021. Living in Ohakune, she was provided with some 170 g of methamphetamine by another member of the group, for whom she supplied it in her community for her return of some $30,000 to him. Various items consistent with the sale and supply of methamphetamine, including multiple small bags of the substance, were found at her home. Ms Hall was the last of the group to resolve charges brought against them all, including by the Crown offering no evidence in relation to other charges brought against her.

Judgment under appeal

[3] Judge Clark adopted a starting point of four years and six months’ imprisonment,3 with reference to the bands and roles as set out in Zhang.4 Observing Ms Hall “would have been well aware of the scale of what it was she was doing”,5 at “a level of sophistication … [not] out of naivety or because of a drug addiction, in fact quite the opposite”,6 her Honour considered Ms Hall’s “close association with [her supplier], her previous experience in relation to this type of offending and her fruitful contacts within her community” all indicated “this was an established network of drug supply”.7 In relation to Zhang’s ‘lesser’ and ‘significant’ bands, the Judge assessed Ms Hall’s conduct to be “somewhat on the cusp, but leaning towards the low end of significant”: “Ms Hall knew very well what she was doing and did it efficiently”.8

1      R v Hall [2022] NZDC 12518.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2). Maximum penalty: life imprisonment.
3      R v Hall, above n 1, at [29].
4      Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507, [2019] 3 NZLR 64 at [125]. The Judge also had regard to a factually similar authority in setting the starting point: Epapara v R [2022] NZHC 2494.
5      R v Hall, above n 1, at [24].
6 At [25].
7 At [26].
8 At [27].

[4] The Judge…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read JANINE MOANA HALL AND THE KING and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NZHC 2587
Decision Date: 9 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Janine Moana Hall appealed against her four-year imprisonment sentence for methamphetamine possession with intent to supply, which was handed down by Judge T V Clark in the District Court. The appeal was heard remotely and subsequently dismissed by the High Court. The appellant, Ms Hall, argued that the sentencing was manifestly excessive due to the sentencing judge's failure to consider mitigating factors such as her responsibility for her young children, her post-sentence rehabilitation efforts, and her offer to assist police. The High Court considered the credibility and timeliness of the fresh evidence provided and assessed whether these factors could have influenced the original sentence. The court found that the District Court had appropriately considered the impact of imprisonment on Ms Hall's children and concluded that no further mitigating factors existed at the time of sentencing that would have altered the outcome. The appeal was dismissed, and the application to adduce fresh evidence was declined.

Orders