Oates v The King - [2023] NZHC 1349

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2023-488-0014

[2023] NZHC 1349

BETWEEN
MATTHEW OATES

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 4 April 2023

Appearances:

D J Blaikie for Mr Oates A Goodwin for the Crown

Judgment:

31 May 2023

JUDGMENT OF ROBINSON J

[Sentence appeal]

This judgment was delivered by me on 31 May 2023 at 2:00 pm.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel: MWIS, Whangarei D J Blaikie, Kaikohe

OATES v R [2023] NZHC 1349 [31 May 2023]

Introduction

[1] On 8 February 2023 Matthew Oates was sentenced at the Kaikohe District Court to 27 months’ imprisonment1 after pleading guilty to charges of cultivating cannabis (x 1),2 selling cannabis (x 22),3 and offering to sell cannabis (x 15).4

[2] Mr Oates appeals his sentence. He says the sentence was manifestly excessive because: the starting point of three years’ imprisonment adopted by the Judge was too high; and discounts applied in recognition of his guilty plea and personal circumstances were too low. He also says that some discount should have been given to reflect that Mr Oates may face the prospect of having assets forfeited under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.

The offending

[3] On 2 August 2022 Mr Oates signed a Police summary of facts which recorded that he would plead guilty to the charges arising out of the offending it described. That offending is summarised below.

[4] At about 5:46 am on Thursday, 15 April 2021 Police executed a search warrant at Mr Oates’ home address. That is a coastal rural property, approximately four hectares in size. It has a large garden, a two-bedroom house, a large three-bay garage and a detached one-room sleepout. There are also three sheds and a small glasshouse on the property.

[5] During the search of the house the Police located a small amount of cannabis and $5,420 cash in three areas in the home. When the Police searched the property, they located 66 cannabis plants growing in three different locations. Three of the plants were located growing in pots in a small glasshouse near the sleepout. 44 plants were found growing inside three grow tents located within one of two sheds on the property. Each of the plants was individually planted in ten litre pots and was growing

1      Police v Oates [2023] NZDC 2096.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 9. Maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Sections 6(1)(e) and (2)(c). Maximum penalty eight years’ imprisonment.
4      Sections 6(1)(e) and (2)(c). Maximum penalty eight years’ imprisonment.

under high intensity discharge lights. There were also fans and an active carbon filter in each of the tents. Nineteen plants were located in the second shed.

[6] The Police carried out a yield test. A Court cannabis expert also estimated the potential yield of cannabis head per plant to be approximately two ounces (56 grams) of manicured seedless cannabis head. Police accept that Mr Oates would have personally used some of the cannabis. Excluding…

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 Oates v The King

Details

AGLC: Oates v The King [2023] NZHC 1349
Case: [2023] NZHC 1349
Decision Date: 31 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Oates v The King involves an appeal by Matthew Oates against his sentence imposed by the Kaikohe District Court for cultivating, selling, and offering to sell cannabis. The appeal was heard in the High Court of New Zealand at Whangarei and judgment was delivered by Justice Robinson on 31 May 2023. Mr Oates had pleaded guilty to cultivating cannabis, selling cannabis, and offering to sell cannabis. He was sentenced to 27 months’ imprisonment by the District Court, a sentence he considers manifestly excessive. The appeal centred on several grounds, including the starting point for sentencing, the discount for Mr Oates' guilty plea, the discount for personal circumstances, and the prospect of asset forfeiture under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.

The court considered the starting point of three years' imprisonment, which was based on the Court of Appeal's guideline judgment in R v Terewi. The court found that while the starting point was at the higher end of the scale, it was not manifestly excessive given the commercial scale and sophistication of Mr Oates' cannabis cultivation and distribution. Regarding the discount for the guilty plea, the court found that the 15% discount applied by the District Court was not too low, although it acknowledged that a higher discount might have been appropriate. The most significant error identified by the court was the inadequate discount for personal circumstances, as outlined in a report prepared pursuant to s 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002. The court found that Mr Oates' background, which included severe injuries from car accidents, social isolation, drug addiction, and mental health issues, warranted a 20% discount rather than the 5% applied by the District Court. The court also dismissed the argument for an additional discount in anticipation of potential asset forfeiture.

The court concluded that the total discount should have been 35%, reducing the appropriate sentence from 27 months to 23 months' imprisonment. However, considering Mr Oates had already served four months, the court substituted the remaining 19 months with a sentence of four months' home detention, subject to specific conditions. This decision was deemed appropriate as it satisfied the principles of deterrence and denunciation, held Mr Oates accountable for his offending, and was the least restrictive sentence available. The appeal was thus allowed, and the original sentence was quashed in favour of the new sentence of four months' home detention.

Orders