2017.1 The sentence was imposed after Mr Lawrie had pleaded guilty to three charges – namely possession of methamphetamine with intent to supply, possession of a class B substance, gamma-butyrolactone (GBL), with intent to supply and breach of home detention.

[2] Mr Lawrie appeals the sentence arguing that it was manifestly excessive. He says that the starting point adopted by Judge Dawson failed to take into account that there was no commerciality to his offending, that insufficient credit was given to him for his guilty pleas, his efforts at rehabilitation and the time he spent on restrictive bail.

[3] The Crown opposes the appeal. It says that the starting point was well within the available range, and that no error can be identified in the way in which Judge Dawson approached the matter. It argues that the appeal should be dismissed.

Relevant facts

[4] On 6 November 2015, the police executed a search warrant at Mr Lawrie’s house. They found three plastic ziplock bags, containing a total of 2.059 grams of methamphetamine in Mr Lawrie’s bedroom, together with a glass bottle which was filled with 72 millilitres of GBL, four glass pipes, commonly used for smoking methamphetamine, and two sets of digital scales. The sum of $732 in cash was found in Mr Lawrie’s wallet.

[5] Mr Lawrie was serving a sentence of home detention at the time the police search was executed. The sentence had been imposed on 10 September 2015 in respect of driving convictions, and, significantly, other drug related offending.

[6] Mr Lawrie was charged. He sought a sentence indication on 2 August 2016. The indication given by Judge Dawson was as follows:

1 R v Lawrie [2017] NZDC 4440.

(a) 25 months’ imprisonment on the lead charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply;

(b) a three month uplift to take into account Mr Lawrie’s criminal history;

and

(c) a discount of four months for guilty pleas, bringing the end sentence to 23 months’ imprisonment. [7] This indication was rejected by Mr Lawrie.

[8] The matter was called on 22 August 2016. This was the third callover. It was on a Monday, and it seems that the matter was to go to hearing during that week. In any event, Mr Lawrie then entered guilty pleas.

[9] The matter came back to 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.

Continue reading Lawrie v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Lawrie v The Queen [2017] NZHC 1222
Case: [2017] NZHC 1222
Decision Date: 6 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

David Michael Lawrie appeals a 26-month imprisonment sentence imposed on him by Judge Dawson in the District Court at Auckland on 3 March 2017. The sentence was imposed after Mr Lawrie pleaded guilty to three charges: possession of methamphetamine with intent to supply, possession of a class B substance, gamma-butyrolactone (GBL), with intent to supply, and breach of home detention. The appellant argues that the sentence was manifestly excessive, contending that the starting point adopted by Judge Dawson failed to account for the absence of commerciality in his offending, and that insufficient credit was given for his guilty pleas, efforts at rehabilitation, and the time spent on restrictive bail. The Crown opposes the appeal, arguing that the starting point was within the appropriate range and that no error can be identified in the way Judge Dawson approached the matter.

The appeal raises questions about the appropriateness of the starting point, the uplift for Mr Lawrie’s criminal history and the concurrent offending, and the discount given for the guilty pleas, rehabilitation efforts, and time spent on bail. The Court examines whether there was a complete absence of commerciality in Mr Lawrie’s offending and whether the uplifts and discounts applied were appropriate. The Court finds that the starting point was within range, the uplifts were modest and appropriate, and only a small discount was appropriate for the guilty pleas. While Mr Lawrie did spend some time on bail, the restrictiveness of the bail conditions was not clear, and any discount for time spent on bail would be small. The Court concludes that the sentence imposed is not manifestly excessive and dismisses the appeal.

In conclusion, the appeal against the sentence is dismissed. The sentence of 26 months’ imprisonment, imposed by Judge Dawson in the District Court at Auckland, is upheld.

Orders