Police v Clothier - [2012] NZHC 2348

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI 2012-031-149 [2012] NZHC 2348

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

v

DEAN AARON CLOTHIER

Hearing: 12 September 2012

Counsel: A Read for Crown
S Isac for the Accused

Sentence: 12 September 2012

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MALLON J

Introduction

[1] Mr Clothier, you need to stand while I sentence you. You appear for sentencing today having pleaded guilty to one charge of cultivation of cannabis[1] and one charge of theft of electricity.[2]

[1] Section 9(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 (maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment).

[2] Section 219 and 223(b) of the Crimes Act 1961 (maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment).

[2] You are here in the High Court for sentencing because the District Court has declined jurisdiction to sentence you.

NEW ZEALAND POLICE v CLOTHIER HC PMN CRI 2012-031-149 [12 September 2012]

[3] On 2 February 2012, the police executed a search warrant at your address. You were alone at the address. The police could smell cannabis and asked you where it was. You showed the police a small cannabis plant hanging in a cupboard in a bedroom. You also showed the police a packaged bag of cannabis weighing
28 grams, in your backpack in the kitchen at the address. That cannabis had an estimated street value of $300. The police also discovered a set of digital scales on the kitchen table.

[4] The police then asked you if there was any cannabis growing at the address. You told them that there were a few plants in the garage. In the garage, the police discovered a three stage growing set up. The main growing area was lined with reflective material. The room was powered by six ballast transformers running five fans and six grow lamps under metal hoods. In this area there were 58 cannabis plants. These plants were approximately 80 centimetres tall and were at least four weeks away from full maturity. The police estimated the yield of these 58 plants to be about one ounce of cannabis per plant with a total street value of about $17,400.

[5] There was also a second, but smaller, growing area within the garage. This was separated from the main growing area by a piece of black polythene. The area was powered by another ballast transformer running a grow lamp with a hood. In this area there were a further 29 cannabis plants in the early stages of development. These plants were cloned from a mother plant located nearby. A polystyrene box containing 37 seedlings, with ultra violet light piercing the top, was located under a table.

[6] You admitted growing cannabis for your own personal use. You also admitted that you had been growing at the address for five months.

[7] The police noted that the electricity meter at your address had been tampered with. You admitted that you had done that. An electrical technician estimated that over a five month period, you would have used about $1,400 worth of…

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 Clothier

Details

AGLC: Police v Clothier [2012] NZHC 2348
Case: [2012] NZHC 2348
Decision Date: 12 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Palmerston North Registry, the case of New Zealand Police v Dean Aaron Clothier was heard. Mr Clothier had pleaded guilty to cultivating cannabis and stealing electricity. The District Court had declined jurisdiction to sentence him, leading to his appearance in the High Court. During a police search of Mr Clothier's residence, cannabis plants and equipment were discovered, indicating a significant growing operation. Mr Clothier admitted to cultivating the cannabis for personal use, although the scale of the operation suggested otherwise. Additionally, he confessed to tampering with the electricity meter, resulting in substantial electricity theft. The court considered Mr Clothier's personal circumstances, including his history of prior convictions, his addiction to cannabis, and his recent engagement in drug counselling. In determining the sentence, the court weighed the purposes and principles of sentencing, particularly deterrence and rehabilitation. The court established a starting point of two years and three months' imprisonment, acknowledging the limited commercial aspect of the offending but considering the sophisticated nature of the operation. After applying a discount for the early guilty plea and evaluating personal mitigating factors, the court opted for a sentence of home detention, considering it more appropriate for achieving the purposes of sentencing. The court imposed specific conditions for the home detention, including mandatory drug counselling, a ban on drug use, participation in a parenting course, and budgeting advice.

The final orders included a sentence of ten months' home detention with specified conditions, the forfeiture and destruction of the cannabis and related equipment, and no order for reparation regarding the stolen electricity due to the impracticality of financial compensation under the circumstances.

Orders