Police v Bevins - [2013] NZHC 2066

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI-2013-054-1651 [2013] NZHC 2066

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

v

DEAN REX BEVINS

Hearing: 14 August 2013

Appearances: B D Vanderkolk for the Police
M B Ryan for the prisoner

Sentence: 14 August 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF GODDARD J

[1] Mr Bevins, you appear for sentence today having entered a plea of guilty to possession of the Class C controlled drug cannabis for the purpose of supply. This is an offence under ss 6(1)(f) and 6(2)(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, and is subject to a maximum penalty of eight years’ imprisonment. Your sentencing was removed into the High Court because Judge Lynch in the District Court rightly considered that the maximum penalty of 12 months’ imprisonment available in the District Court was inadequate to mark your offending.

[2] I need also at the outset to state that a sentence of home detention is not available to you and remind you of what Judge Lynch said about that when declining jurisdiction to sentence you:1

I turn to this issue of jurisdiction. It is plain that this is serious commercial offending. Mr Bevins was found with 123 separate cannabis tinnies and a

1 Police v Bevins DC Palmerston North CRI-2013-054-001651, 23 July 2013 at [9]-[11].

POLICE v BEVINS [2013] NZHC 2066 [14 August 2013]

significant amount of cash located by the drug dog. It seems plain that Mr Bevins is at risk of a significantly greater sentence than one of two years and accordingly it is appropriate and proper in my assessment to decline jurisdiction which I do.

The ultimate sentence to be imposed on Mr Bevins is however, for the High Court and it would not be right for me to restrict the High Court in what it sentences Mr Bevins to, by not directing a home detention appendix.

Out of an abundance of caution I will direct a home detention appendix to be prepared, but Mr Bevins should not think for a moment that my directing that appendix is any indication of end sentence, rather I am doing it out of an abundance of caution.

Introduction and background

[3] The background to your offending is that on 31 May 2013, the police executed a search warrant at your address. The police search revealed:

(a) 4.9 grams of cannabis and $335 in the bedroom;

(b)$19,000 in $20, $50 and $100 notes hidden in two envelopes behind a light fitting in the hallway;

(c) $4,100 inside a plastic envelope hidden in a sofa; (d) two cellphones and a sim card; and
(e) 123 tinnies totalling 114.83 grams in 7 ziplock bags. These bags had been placed inside a black carry bag and hidden inside a piano in the garage.

[4] After the police raid, you admitted possession of the cannabis but said it was for friends and family to use and not for sale. You denied any knowledge of the
$4,100 found in the sofa and you claimed that the cash…

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 Police v Bevins

Details

AGLC: Police v Bevins [2013] NZHC 2066
Case: [2013] NZHC 2066
Decision Date: 14 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Police v Bevins, Dean Rex Bevins was sentenced by Goddard J in the High Court of New Zealand. Bevins had pleaded guilty to possession of cannabis for the purpose of supply, a serious commercial offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The maximum penalty for this offence is eight years’ imprisonment. The sentencing was transferred to the High Court as the District Court deemed its maximum penalty of 12 months’ imprisonment inadequate. The case involved the discovery of 114.83 grams of cannabis and $23,450 in cash during a police raid on Bevins' property.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, and deciding whether a community-based sentence was appropriate. The court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing, including holding Bevins accountable, promoting responsibility, and ensuring denunciation and deterrence. The court also had to weigh Bevins' extensive criminal history against his demonstrated remorse and motivation to stop selling cannabis.

The court adopted a starting point of two years and six months’ imprisonment, adjusted for Bevins' previous drug-related convictions and his early guilty plea. The final sentence was two years’ imprisonment, with conditions for rehabilitation and treatment upon release. The court declined to order forfeiture of the cash found during the raid due to insufficient evidence linking it to the current offence.

The court's decision emphasized the need for imprisonment to uphold the principles of denunciation and deterrence, given the commercial nature of Bevins' offending and his prior convictions. The court also noted that a community-based sentence was inappropriate given the circumstances of the case.

Orders