Leaupepe v Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-404-391 [2016] NZHC 76

BETWEEN

GEORGE EDWARD LEAUPEPE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	3 February 2016
Counsel:	JD Pennick for appellant GM Woods-Child for respondent
Judgment:	4 February 2016

JUDGMENT OF FAIRE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 4 February 2016 at 2:30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors:           Meredith Connell, Auckland

To:  JD Pennick, Auckland

Leaupepe v New Zealand Police [2016] NZHC 76 [4 February 2016]

Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................[1] Facts .......................................................................................................................[3] Personal circumstances ..............................................................................................

Prior Convictions  [5]

Pre-Sentence Report  [6] District Court Decision ..........................................................................................[7]

Submissions................................................................................................................

Appellant’s Submissions  [9]

Respondent’s submissions  [12] Appeal against sentence .......................................................................................[14] Fresh evidence presented on appeal .....................................................................[19]

Analysis ......................................................................................................................

Tariff Case  [25] Relevant Cases  [26] Setting a Starting Point  [28] Adjusting the Starting Point  [35]

Conclusion on appeal ...........................................................................................[40] Result....................................................................................................................[42]

Introduction

[1]      On 2 December 2015, Mr George Leaupepe was convicted and sentenced by Judge Harvey in the Auckland District Court to 150 hours community work for cultivating cannabis contrary to s 9(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

[2]      Mr Leaupepe appeals the sentence of 150 hours community work on the basis that it is manifestly excessive.

Facts

[3]      At about 11.40pm on 4 November 2015 Police were at 420 Onehunga Mall, Onehunga on  an  unrelated matter.  420  Onehunga Mall  is  Mr  Leaupepe’s  home address.

[4]      Police located five cannabis plants in a hydroponics growing setup in the corner of Mr Leaupepe’s bedroom. The hydroponics setup was contained within a tent and included a lightbulb, the cannabis plants, empty plant pots, two plastic fans, a plastic pressure sprayer, a container holding fertilisers and a stainless steel lampshade.

Personal circumstances

Prior Convictions

[5]      Mr   Leaupepe   has   no   previous   drug-related   convictions.   Since   2012

Mr Leaupepe has been convicted and sentenced for 11 different offences varying in nature.

Pre-Sentence Report

[6]      No pre-sentence report was provided.

District Court Decision

[7]      Judge Harvey’s decision reads as follows: 1

Convicted and sentenced to 150 hours of community work. I am prepared to accept it was back category one Terewi and for own use but it is too much to expect somebody to impose a fine.

[8]      No other reasoning was given.

1      Police v Leaupepe, DC Auckland CRI-2015-004-011392, 2 December 2015 at [1].

Submissions

Appellant’s Submissions

[9]      Mr Pennick, counsel for the appellant, submits:

(a)       that  the  sentence  of  150  hours  of  community  work  is  manifestly excessive; and

(b)      that a fine is the only appropriate outcome for the following reasons:

(i)For cases that fall into Category One of Terewi, offending is “almost invariably dealt with by a fine or other non-custodial sentence”.2

(ii)The small number of plants was Mr Leaupepe’s first attempt at cultivation and was intended for personal use only (primarily for pain management for injuries resulting from his rugby career).  This  placed  the  offending  at  the  lowest  end  of Category One.

(iii)Mr   Leaupepe’s   full-time   work   commitments   means   the imposition of a sentence…