Paulsen v The Queen

[2018] NZHC 3201

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2018-409-000099

[2018] NZHC 3201

BETWEEN

MICHAEL ALEXANDER PAULSEN

Appellant

AND

THE CROWN

Respondent

Hearing:	29 November 2018
Appearances:	A M S Williams for the Appellant S J Mallett for the Respondent
Judgment:	10 December 2018

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

Introduction

[1]        Michael Paulsen pleaded guilty to some 30 charges of dishonesty offending. On 4 September 2018, Judge Gilbert sentenced Mr Paulsen to two and a half years’ imprisonment in respect of those charges.

[2]        Mr Paulsen appeals his sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive. In particular, he submits that the sentencing Judge did not give sufficient weight to his mental health at the time of offending. Mr Paulsen seeks either a reduction in sentence to two years, or that a report should be ordered under s 38(1)(c) and (d) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons Act 2003) and the matter be remitted back to the District Court so that Mr Paulsen can be sentenced with due regard to the report.

PAULSEN v R [2018] NZHC 3201 [10 December 2018]

Charges

[3]Judge Gilbert set out the charges as follows:1

(a)        three charges of theft under $500;

(b)        one charge of theft over $1,000;

(c)        four charges of burglary, two of which were residential, two of which were more commercial in nature;

(d)        one charge of being unlawfully in an enclosed yard;

(e)        one charge of causing loss by deception;

(f)         six charges of using a document to obtain a pecuniary advantage;

(g)        one charge of receiving between $500-$1,000;

(h)        one charge of receiving over $1,000;

(i)          one charge of using another person’s passport;

(j)          one charge of unlawfully interfering with a motor vehicle;

(k)        one charge of unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle;

(l)          three charges of dishonestly accessing a computer to obtain a pecuniary advantage;

(m)     two charges of possession of a knife;

(n)        one charge of possession of a methamphetamine pipe; and

(o)        three charges of failing to answer bail.

Facts

[4]        The offending occurred between 7 October 2017 and 10 May 2018. Judge Gilbert helpfully summarised that offending as follows:

[4]        The first summary I have records that on 7 October last year you went to The Warehouse in Eastgate. You selected a power bank used for charging mobile phones and headed straight towards the exit without making any attempt to pay. You were stopped by store security and handed back the power bank and then left the store. That was valued at $15 and accounts for one of the theft charges.

1      R v Paulsen [2018] NZDC 18749 at [1].

[5]        On 7 December, you obtained a prescription from your doctor for Tramadol. You used an online photoshop tool to alter that prescription and then tried to redeem it for Codeine a week later on 13 December. The pharmacist became suspicious and you left the store when that occurred. That accounts for a charge of using a document.

[6]        On 17 January, a brown wallet was stolen from a vehicle in Sydenham. Several weeks later on 6 February, you were with a friend who asked you to hold onto a number of items. They included a passport issued to James Dobbs, the brown wallet that had been taken from the vehicle, some keys and a birth certificate. You accepted those in circumstances where they had clearly been illegitimately obtained and that accounts for one of the receiving charges. In the early hours, you were stopped by police in Woolston. You were asked for identification and you provided the name of James Dobbs and then handed over his passport. That accounts for the charge under the Passports Act 1992 which carries a maximum penalty of up to 10 years. You were arrested and an 18-centimetre flick knife was located which accounts for one of the charges of possession of a knife.

[7]        I move now to the second summary. On 24 October, you placed an advertisement on Facebook trying to sell a laptop. The victim put $128 into your bank account but you never sent her the laptop. That accounts for a charge of causing loss by deception.

[8]        The next summary records that on 19 November last year, you were in Lyttelton. You approached a parked Suzuki car, opened the door and removed a handbag which contained jewellery, a Samsung mobile phone and various bank cards. On 19 November, you went to a BP station in New Brighton and used the PayWave function three times on a bank card belonging to the person whose bag you had taken. You purchased $181 of goods in those three transactions. The next day you did the same thing, extracting $20.

[9]          On 21 January this year, you went to an address on Oxford Street in Lyttelton. You were allowed entry by the victim and when left alone removed a credit card from his wallet. Over the next two days you used that credit card 27 times to purchase items from various stores with a total value of just on

$5000. One charge captures those multiple transactions.

[10]      On 14 February, you were on Garlands Road in Christchurch. You approached a parked Volkswagen and when you tried to open the door a rear- mounted camera activated and captured your image. You then went to a commercial business nearby called The Cutting Company. That business had closed but the owner was present in the office. You unlocked the back door and searched the workshop area removing power tools valued at $775 which you stole. That accounts for the first of the four burglary charges. On 30 April, you were spoken to about various matters and when you were arrested, a glass meth pipe was located.

[11]      The next summary records that on Christmas Day last year you were outside the Lyttelton Information Centre. You observed another person unlock an external lock box via a push button code which then gave entry to the building. You entered and interacted with that person. You asked to use the toilet and then took the opportunity to search the various rooms. You left but returned later in the evening unlocking the lock box and searching the rooms.

You removed two computers and a safe and also attempted to use a hatchet to enter an out building. That accounts for another charge of burglary.

[12]      A few days later on 30 December, you approached a residential dwelling in Lyttelton. You entered through an unlocked door on the upper level. One of the occupiers was downstairs as you rummaged about. You took a number of items from the dining room and a bedroom including a laptop, two digital cameras and lenses, a leather satchel, some jewellery, a leather wallet containing various cards, a backpack, passports and a set of keys. That is another charge of burglary. Almost a month later, you returned to that property where the owner was working. When she came outside she saw you hurry away from a pathway up the side of her house. She confronted you and you said that you were looking for your dog. It seems to me very likely that you were in fact, looking to burgle the place again. That accounts for a charge of unlawfully being in a yard.

[13]      At about 4.30 on the same afternoon you went to another dwelling on Randolph Terrace in Lyttelton. You uplifted a weed eater and placed it under a deck. You then entered the house using a nearby ladder to climb through an open bathroom window. You removed your shoes and left other items at the back of the house. You searched through the master bedroom including drawers. You also went to the kitchen and took a Swiss army knife and a head torch. The victim returned home with her four-year-old daughter. When she went outside she noticed your belongings and you then approached her. You asked her if you could borrow some clothes because the shorts you were wearing were too rough to catch a bus. You gave her a false name. She then, in a display of goodwill and not knowing what you had been up to, gave you some shorts and you left. It was a little while later that she located the items that you were clearly intending to steal that you had stashed underneath her deck. That is another charge of burglary.

[14]      The next summary notes that in February this year, a house on Opawa Road was burgled. All sorts of items including passports, keys, electronic equipment, personal documentation as well as six firearms were taken. Sometime after that burglary you received a number of these items that were later recovered during the search at your house. That is a charge of receiving.

[15]      On 23 February, you accessed a bank account of one of the owners of the Opawa Road address. You initially took $7300 which was deposited in your own account. Later on that day, you took another $4000 and put it into another person’s account. The next day on 24 February, you transferred a further $3300 into your own account. That accounts for the three charges of accessing a computer system for a dishonest purpose.

[16]      On 24 February, you also attempted to use that particular victim’s Eftpos card to withdraw money. In two separate transactions, you obtained

$700. That accounts for a charge of using a document.

[17]      On 15 April overnight, a person broke into a vehicle on Oxford Street in Lyttelton. That person smashed a window with a rock and stole a wallet which contained various bank cards. You received that wallet very shortly following which accounts for another charge of receiving. You then attempted to use one of the credit cards. You had tried 10 transactions over the course of about five hours, some of which were successful and others were not. That is another charge of using a document laid as a representative charge.

[18]      The next summary records that on 9 February a white Subaru was stolen from a road here in Christchurch. Nine days later on 18 February, you were driving that vehicle with false number plates affixed to it. That is a charge of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle. When you were arrested a flick- blade was located along with a second utility knife and those knives are the subject of another charge of possession of a knife.

[19]      The final summary of facts records that on 10 May you went to MTF to obtain some finance. In doing so, you produced photocopies of a previously stolen driver’s licence and bank statement. Because of your suspicious behaviour, your request for finance was declined. That accounts for a charge of attempting to use a document.

[20]      The final three charges are failures to answer bail and they are self- explanatory.

District Court decision

[5]    Judge Gilbert described the offending as a prolonged and damaging course of conduct.2 His Honour started out by described the offending as being fuelled by Mr Paulsen’s drug addiction. In citing the pre-sentence report, the Judge noted Mr Paulsen’s mental health and referred to his schizophrenia. The Judge said that, at the time of offending, Mr Paulsen had “stopped taking medication and instead started medicating himself with illicit drugs including methamphetamine and opiates.”

[6]    His Honour considered counsel’s respective submissions as to sentence. The Crown suggested a starting point of three years for the burglary charges and two and a half years for the remaining dishonesty offences. In accepted there should be a reduction for totality, the Crown submitted the starting point should be in the vicinity of four years. The Crown sought an uplift of six months for offending while on bail and acknowledged an entitlement based on a guilty plea. For Mr Paulsen, Mrs May submitted an overall starting point of three years would be more appropriate. She pointed to various programmes Mr Paulsen was involved in and the mental health difficulties involved. She submitted, once all factors were considered, a period of home detention could be ordered.

[7]    Judge Gilbert stated that burglary was the lead charge. His Honour noted the following aggravating features of the offending:

2 At [21].

(a)        the sheer scale of the offending;

(b)        the extent of loss caused;

(c)        the number of victims;

(d)        in relation to two of the burglaries, entry into a dwelling house; and

(e)        premeditation.

[8]    Taking the four burglaries together, he adopted a starting point of three years' imprisonment. The Judge then adopted a further starting point of two years to account for the remainder of the dishonesty offending. Finally, his Honour uplifted by a further three months to account for the remaining charges of failing to answer bail, possession of knives and possession of a pipe.

[9]    Taking into account the totality principle, Judge Gilbert then adjusted the starting point to four years' imprisonment.

[10]    Moving to aggravating and mitigating features personal to Mr Paulsen, the Judge uplifted the sentence by three months to account for the fact that much of the offending occurred while Mr Paulsen was on bail.

[11]   His Honour reduced the sentence by two months for the time spent on electronically monitored bail and a further nine months for the efforts Mr Paulsen had made at rehabilitation, acknowledgement of his mental health difficulties, the positive references, remorse and the offer of reparation. There was a further 10-month reduction for guilty pleas resulting in an end sentence of two years six months' imprisonment, which the Judge noted was more than “full credit in the circumstances”.

[12]   The Judge noted that the loss attributable to Mr Paulsen’s conduct was in the order of $30,000 which he described as a huge sum which Mr Paulsen had no realistic way of repaying. He ordered Mr Paulsen to pay reparation of $1,781 at $20 per week.

[13]   The Judge noted that Mr Paulsen could be eligible for parole in around eight or nine months with credit for the time already served. In his sentencing notes, he

brought to the Parole Board’s attention the progress Mr Paulsen had made in the time he had been on e-bail with supports available. He said he hoped that, with that progress, Mr Paulsen would be looked upon favourably by the Board when he first became eligible for parole.

Principles on appeal

[14]   Appeals against sentence are allowed as of right by s 244 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, and must be determined in accordance with s 250 of that Act. An appeal against sentence may only be allowed by this Court if it is satisfied there has been an error in the imposition of the sentence and that a different sentence should be imposed.3 As the Court of Appeal stated in Tutakangahau v R, an appellate court “will not intervene where the sentence is within the range that can properly be justified by accepted sentencing principles”.4 It is only appropriate for this court to intervene and substitute its own views if the sentence being appealed is “manifestly excessive” and not justified by the relevant sentencing principles.5

Submissions

Appellant’s submissions

[15]   In submissions for Mr Paulsen, Mr Williams submitted the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and that another sentence should be imposed because Mr Paulsen’s mental health was not given sufficient weight by the sentencing Judge. Mr Williams submitted that the appeal should be allowed and Mr Paulsen’s sentence should be reduced to two years’ imprisonment.

[16]   In the alternative, and as emphasised in submissions before me, Mr Williams submitted that Mr Paulsen’s appeal should be allowed, a report should be ordered pursuant to s 38(1)(c) and (d) Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 and the matter should be remitted back to the District Court for sentence. Mr Paulsen would then be sentenced taking into account what was in the report.

3      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 250(2) and 250(3).

4      Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482 at [36].

5      Ripia v R [2011] NZCA 101 at [15].

[17]   Mr Williams accepted that, but for Mr Paulsen’s mental health, a starting point of four years would have been appropriate. However, Mr Williams argued that mental health goes to the culpability of offending and is thus relevant to the sentence imposed. In doing so, Mr Williams cited a lengthy passage of the recent Court of Appeal decision in Shailer v R.6 There the court said:

Mental disorder elevated to the level of insanity excuses legal responsibility altogether. Diminished responsibility short of insanity is a discretionary consideration in sentencing. Its effect may be to mitigate sentence, although it may also be a neutral consideration and (where public safety issues are prominent) it may even aggravate the level of sentence.

[18]   Mr Williams said that Mr Paulsen suffers from schizophrenia and, at the time of the offending, he had stopped taking prescribed medication and was consuming a range of non-prescribed substances. Mr Williams pointed to reports from medical professionals, particularly that of Dr Steane, who said Mr Paulsen’s schizophrenic presentation and treatment have been complicated by a significant history of substance use, poor engagement with treatment and non-compliance with prescribed medications. Mr Williams submitted that Mr Paulsen’s behaviour changed significantly once his mental health stabilised. On that basis, the court is able to infer that Mr Paulsen’s mental illness was a material factor in his offending.

[19]   Mr Williams submitted the end sentence was reached without proper regard for the impact of Mr Paulsen’s mental illness on his culpability. It was submitted that the appropriate end sentence in the present case would have been two years and, as a result, the appeal should be allowed.

[20]   Mr Williams submitted that Dr Steane considered himself unable to provide information regarding the impact of psychosis on Mr Paulsen’s offending. He submitted a report from a forensic psychiatrist was required. Mr Williams said it was unclear whether any of the parties involved in the sentencing process turned their minds to the possibility of seeking a report pursuant to s 38(1)(c) and/or (d) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. Mr Williams submitted such a report would have assisted the court in this case given the complex history of mental illness and substance abuse.

6      Shailer v R [2017] NZCA 38, [2017] 2 NZLR 629, (2017) 28 CRNZ 521.

Respondent’s submissions

[21]   The Crown provided its submissions before receiving submissions for Mr Paulsen. The Crown submitted the conclusion the Court must reach is that the end sentence was not manifestly excessive. As came to be accepted by Mr Paulsen, the Crown submitted the starting points for the offending were within range.

[22]   Regarding the mental health aspect, the Crown submitted there was a discount of nine months for rehabilitative steps to acknowledge Mr Paulsen’s mental health difficulties, his positive references, remorse and offer to pay reparation.

[23]    The Crown submitted that this was a reasonably significant discount. In respect of the discount relating to Mr Paulsen’s mental health, the Crown submitted it was significant that Mr Paulsen chose to stop taking his prescribed medication and self-medicated on illicit substances. Although the courts have allowed larger discounts for mental health difficulties which impact upon a person's culpability, it was submitted that Mr Paulsen’s choice to stop medicating in this case severely mitigated against any available discount.

[24]Finally, the full discount for a guilty plea was provided.

Discussion

[25]   In Shailer v R, the Court of Appeal explained how mental health disorders may affect the starting point of a sentencing exercise through affecting the degree of culpability of the offending.7 Mental illness may also be taken into account as a mitigating circumstance relevant to the offender. In discussing how mental illness might impact on sentence, the Court said “we consider it is important not to place the analysis of the relevance of mental disorder in sentencing in a juristic straightjacket”.8

[26]The Court said:9

As we have noted already, mental health disorders may reduce offender culpability. As this Court noted in R v Nelson, sentencing has a moral base:

7      Shailer v R, above n 6.

8      Shailer v R, above n 6, at [48].

9      Shailer v R, above n 6, at [50], citing R v Nelson [2014] NZCA 121.

“As such, mental disorder may mitigate moral fault and, accordingly, criminal culpability.” Criminal legal responsibility is a juridical response to an offender’s willed choice to offend. Mental health disorders diminishing that willed choice may also diminish the extent of the sentencing response. But a mental disorder without more cannot logically justify a reduction in the starting point of a sentence, based on diminished culpability, unless there is evidence of its causative impact on that culpability.

[27]   There is no criticism of the starting points Judge Gilbert adopted for the different offending or of the various steps the Judge took to arrive at the end sentence, except as to the submitted inadequate allowance for Mr Paulsen’s mental illness.

[28]   Judge Gilbert was clearly mindful of Mr Paulsen’s mental health difficulties. He said:

[24]  I have received a presentence report.  As I just mentioned, you are  aged 30. It seems that this offending has been fuelled by your drug addiction. You are also a diagnosed schizophrenic. At the relevant time, you had stopped taking medication and instead started medicating yourself with illicit drugs including methamphetamine and opiates. You credit your initial remand in custody with transitioning you from those illicit drugs. Since you have been on electronically monitored bail you have engaged with mental health services and other agencies very constructively. You are said to be remorseful for your actions and want to make reparation although the realities in relation to that need to be borne in mind.

[29]   The Judge referred to the submissions made by Mr Paulsen’s counsel, the way she had referred to programmes that he was engaged in and the way she had referred “more generally to the mental health difficulties” Mr Paulsen had.

[30]Judge Gilbert said:

[30]      … I acknowledge the efforts that you have made since being released on electronically monitored bail and I also acknowledge your mental health difficulties. In this regard, I have read with interest, particularly, the report from Dr Simone McLeavey. In that report she states, and I quote, “Your history of multi substance abuse appears to have been largely responsible for fuelling most of your criminal offending over time.” I agree that that must be the case. While I acknowledge the challenges your mental health has presented, it is not that which has been the prime catalyst to your offending. It is your use of illicit drugs and your addiction to them.

[31]      Judge Gilbert may have taken Mr Paulsen’s mental illness into account more as a mitigating factor relating to Mr Paulsen personally rather than in his assessment as to Mr Paulsen’s culpability with regard to the offending. On appeal, the focus is on

the end sentence, rather than the particular steps by which the end sentence is arrived at. I am satisfied the Judge had proper regard to Mr Paulsen’s mental illness and adequately took it into account as a mitigating factor in arriving at the end sentence. The fact that Judge Gilbert took it into account as a mitigating factor as to Mr Paulsen personally, rather than in assessing the culpability of his offending, does not mean that there was an error in the end sentence.

[32]      I have not been persuaded that the end sentence imposed was manifestly excessive because of a failure to have adequate regard to Mr Paulsen’s mental illness.

[33]      Mr Williams however submitted there was an error in the sentencing process because the Court had not obtained a report under s 38 Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. Referring to the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Shailer, he submitted that mental illness can be relevant to the assessment of culpability at the first stage and the Court should have obtained a report for that purpose.

[34]      The issue for me, on an appeal, is whether there was an error through the Court not calling for such a report.

[35]      In this regard, it is relevant that Mr Paulsen’s counsel did not request such a report. Judge Gilbert referred to the “very helpful” submissions he had received from both counsel. He also referred to “a lot of material” that had been put before him and went so far as to say “Mrs May has done an excellent job on your behalf”. The care Mrs May took and the efforts she went to must have contributed to the extent of the credits or discounts which Judge Gilbert gave Mr Paulsen with the ultimate sentence.

[36]      It is not difficult to contemplate situations where the Court receives information that a defendant suffers from a mental illness and the offending is of a nature that suggests the mental illness could have been a significant factor in how the defendant came to offend. For instance, the fact a person is psychotic could explain why he became involved in what might seem an unprovoked attack on another person. Some form of impulsive, uninhibited and irrational behaviour which is also an offence could occur with someone who suffers from bipolar illness being manic.

[37]      There was nothing about the offending here which indicated Mr Paulsen’s schizophrenia was likely to have contributed to his offending. The Judge was not dealing with a situation where the offending occurred over just a brief period when Mr Paulsen stopped taking medication, nor could it be seen to be opportunistic and without premeditation. The offending occurred over a period of seven months in different parts of Christchurch and Lyttelton, in both residential and commercial premises.

[38]      Through Mrs May’s efforts, Judge Gilbert had before him a detailed six page report of 13 June 2018. It was prepared when Mr Paulsen was a remand prisoner on the charges to which he subsequently pleaded guilty. The author was Dr McLeavey, Consultant Psychiatrist with the Forensic Psychiatric Service. It referred to a diagnosis which included schizo-effective disorder, depressive-type. Under current clinical presentation, Dr McLeavey referred to Mr Paulsen telling her that he had “a long history of non-compliance with remediation efforts (including erratic compliance with prescribed psychotropic medication) culminating in his more recent disengagement from follow up with the South Adult Community Psychiatric Service in 2017. Mr McLeavey said that “with regard to his recent mental state, Mr Paulsen acknowledged he may have been “stressed” preceding his index offending”. She said:

Mr Paulsen did not describe at interview today an [sic] overt delusional beliefs. Specifically he denied any delusions of a persecutory, referential or controlled nature. No well-systemised delusional belief system illicited.

[39]Under the heading “Forensic history”, Dr McLeavey said:

… there is an established history of violence related offending in the context of substance misuse and psychosis, in addition to which there is a significant history of non-violence related offending reflected in those more recent alleged charges.

Mr Paulsen’s, history of multi-substance abuse appears to have been largely responsible for fuelling most of his criminal offending over time.

[40]      The Judge had before him a letter from a Mr Holt of addiction advocacy services. Mr Holt referred to progress that Mr Paulsen had made in dealing with his drug problems after he had been released on EM bail. Mr Holt said:

After trying in vain to work with Michael during his pre-incarceration period, I have noticed a massive difference in Michael’s lifestyle. I believe that he

has reached a point in life that the consequences for his addiction are greater than the release he felt he achieved from it. If Michael carries on with his progress, I believe that he will successfully live an AOD free life and benefit from the opportunities that recovery produce.

[41]      There was a letter of support for Mr Paulsen from his mother. She referred to the progress he had made towards recovery and rehabilitation while on EM bail, the fact he was taking responsibility for managing his appointments, liaising with Corrections over EM bail and in other ways engaging with various support services.

[42]      Neither Mr Paulsen’s mother nor Mr Holt suggested Mr Paulsen’s schizophrenia caused him to stop taking his prescribed medication or, while off medication, to embark on a prolonged period of dishonest criminal offending.

[43]      There was a letter from Dr Steane, a consultant psychiatrist at Hillmorton Hospital. He stated:

Michael Paulsen is a 30-year-old gentleman who is currently being treated by the CDHB Community Mental Health Service. He has a history of a psychotic illness (schizophrenia) and episodes of low mood. His presentation and treatment has been complicated by a significant history of substance use, poor engagement with treatment and non-compliance with prescribed medications.

I note that he is currently facing significant criminal charges. I understand that he is currently on electronic bail whilst awaiting sentencing.

I have seen Michael once since he has been on e-bail. I reviewed him on 19/07/18. At this time he said that he had been psychotic at the time of his offending. I am not in a position to make a statement regarding the potential impact of any psychosis upon his offending. Any statement related to impact of mental illness upon his offending would need to be by a forensic psychiatrist.

[44]      Dr Steane was not offering any opinion as to whether Mr Paulsen’s claimed psychosis had been a factor in the offending. Dr McLeavey was a psychiatrist with the forensic team. She expressed the opinion that Mr Paulsen’s history of multi- substance abuse appeared to have been largely responsible for fuelling most of his non-violent criminal offending for which Mr Paulsen was being sentenced.

[45]      The probation officer who provided the Provision of Advice to Courts (PAC) report for sentencing identified the sources of information as including the South Adult Community Mental Health case manager, contact with the MHAPS (Mental Health

Advocacy and Peer Support) counsellor, contact with the CORS case manager and an interview with Mr Paulsen. The PAC report referred to Mr Paulsen having been diagnosed with schizophrenia. The report advised the Judge:

Mr Paulsen has a history of harmful substance abuse. At the time of his offending Mr Paulsen advised that he was using multiple substances, including opiates and methamphetamine. Mr Paulsen has previously used illicit substances as a means to self-medicate and manage his mental health condition prior to his first conviction for dishonesty offending in 2013. Mr Paulsen attributes his recent offending to a further use of methamphetamine to self-medicate, which escalated into poly-substance use including opiates.

[46]      Mr Paulsen had not there attributed his offending to his schizophrenia or to his being psychotic.

[47]      Under key considerations, the PAC report said Mr Paulsen’s offending-related factors are assessed to be “attitudes and drugs”.

[48]      That was the information Judge Gilbert had before him on sentencing. Against that background, there was no error in the sentencing process through the Court not calling for a psychiatric assessment under s 38 Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 as to the way Mr Paulsen’s mental illness might have affected his culpability for the offending he had acknowledged.

[49]      Judge Gilbert understandably acknowledged the positive steps Mr Paulsen had taken while on EM bail to deal with his drug abuse. In a careful sentencing, he gave Mr Paulsen significant credit for that.

[50]      Despite the thorough submissions of Mr Williams, I have not been persuaded that there was any error in the imposition of the sentence or that a different sentence should have been imposed. The appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:

AMS Williams, Barrister, Christchurch Raymond Donnelly & Co., Christchurch.