Legal Research
Cases
Mason v Police

Mason v Police

Case [2022] NZHC 1845 29 July 2022

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2022-463-63

[2022] NZHC 1845

BETWEEN
KATIE HARATA MASON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 25 July 2022

Appearances:

RO Gowing and AE de Villiers for the Appellant CA Bourke for the Respondent

Judgment:

29 July 2022

JUDGMENT OF FITZGERALD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 July 2022 at 11.30am

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………………………

Solicitors:Gowing & Co Lawyers, Whakatane Pollett Legal, Tauranga

MASON v NZ POLICE [2022] NZHC 1845 [29 July 2022]

Introduction

[1] Ms Mason was convicted on charges of dealing in methamphetamine,1 possession of methamphetamine,2 possession of cannabis for supply,3 offering to supply cannabis,4 breach of bail,5 receiving stolen property,6 possession of cannabis,7 possession of utensils for methamphetamine8 and supplying methamphetamine.9 On 25 March 2022, Judge C J Harding in the District Court at Whakatāne sentenced Ms Mason to 10 months’ home detention.10

[2] Ms Mason appeals against her sentence on the basis that the Judge erred by failing to give credit for time spent on remand in custody when determining the end sentence of home detention.11

[3] The appeal was filed out of time. Counsel for Ms Mason says that the error was noticed shortly after the date of sentencing and an application to recall the sentencing decision was filed to correct the error. That application was not scheduled for hearing until 10 May 2022 at which time the sentencing Judge declined jurisdiction.12 The Police do not oppose leave to appeal being granted and I accordingly grant leave.

The offending

[4] Ms Mason’s offending came to light as a result of a police investigation code named “Operation Kikorangi”. Intercepted communications revealed that between

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (2) (representative charge). Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2). Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2). Maximum penalty eight years’ imprisonment.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(e) and (2) (representative charge). Maximum penalty eight years’ imprisonment.
5      Bail Act 2000, s 38(a). Maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment or $2,000 fine.
6      Crimes Act 1961, ss 246 and s 247(a). Maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
7      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(a) and (2). Maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment and/or $500 fine.
8      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 13(1)(a) and (3). Maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment and/or
$500 fine.
9      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (2) (representative charge). Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
10     Police v Mason [2022] NZDC 5230.
11     To be fair to the Judge, it is not clear if this was brought to his attention at sentencing.
12     Under s 177 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

June and September 2021, Ms Mason supplied a total of identifiable weights of two and a half grams of methamphetamine, and on two occasions she offered to supply cannabis of an unidentified amount and value.…

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 Mason v Police

Details

AGLC: Mason v Police [2022] NZHC 1845
Case: [2022] NZHC 1845
Decision Date: 29 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Katie Haraata Mason appeals against her sentence, arguing that the District Court Judge erred by failing to give credit for time spent on remand in custody when determining the end sentence of home detention. The appeal was filed out of time, but leave was granted. The primary issue before the Court was whether the Judge erred in not applying credit for the three months Ms Mason spent on remand in custody when determining her sentence of home detention. The parties were in agreement that credit should have been given, but disagreed on the extent of that credit and when it should be applied. The Court found that the preferable approach was to make the deduction after commuting the end sentence of imprisonment to one of home detention, rather than from the sentence of imprisonment before it is halved to reach the home detention sentence. The Court also found that while both the "one for one" and "two for one" approaches were available, a "one for one" credit was preferable as a starting point, acknowledging the offender's time spent, pre-sentence, in the most restrictive environment possible in the hierarchy of sentencing. The Court found that it was appropriate to give full credit for pre-sentence custody to Ms Mason, reflecting the rehabilitative focus of the home detention sentence. The appeal was allowed, and Ms Mason's sentence of 10 months' home detention was quashed and replaced with a sentence of seven months' home detention. All other conditions of that sentence were to remain the same.

Orders