Police v LaHood - [2012] NZHC 3462

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI-2012-054-853 [2012] NZHC 3462

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

v

JOSEPH RIKI LAHOOD

Hearing: 17 December 2012

Counsel: P L Murray for Crown
Mr Lahood in person

Sentencing: 17 December 2012

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MACKENZIE J

[1] Joseph Riki Lahood, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to a charge of cultivation of the Class C drug cannabis.[1] You are here for sentencing in this Court because the District Court has declined to sentence you because of the seriousness of the offending.

[1] Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 9, with a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment.

[2] You have previously been represented by counsel, Mr Coles, and were represented by Mr Coles at the time when your plea was entered. You have subsequently elected not to retain his services and to represent yourself and I have given you the opportunity to make submissions this morning and have considered
the material you have put before me.

NEW ZEALAND POLICE V LAHOOD HC PMN CRI-2012-054-853 [17 December 2012]

[3] The circumstances of the offending are that on 20 March 2012, police executed a search warrant at the address of you and your partner. A search of the back garden revealed four mature cannabis plants growing in soil between other types of plants. There were also four cannabis seedlings growing in pots on top of the dog kennel.

[4] In a small space between your garage and the fence alongside your property, the police lifted a piece of plywood on the ground which revealed the entrance to a large underground bunker which had been excavated underneath the concrete floor of the garage. That excavation bunker measured some 2.3 metres by 2 metres and was 1.7 metres high, with only one entry and exit point, and structural support had been provided.

[5] Within it police discovered a quite sophisticated cannabis growing operation. The bunker contained three large mother cannabis plants and 104 further cannabis plants of various sizes and maturity. The photographs of the bunker, which I have seen, illustrate the sophisticated nature of that set up. All the cannabis plants were in individual plastic pots. The sides of the bunker were lined with a white fabric. The floor of the bunker was covered by black netting and wooden slats. Two stainless steel shower trays were on top of the netting. You had installed a number of implements in the bunker to assist in growing the cannabis, including heat pumps, an extractor fan, power transformers, air vents, plant growth food and shelving.

[6] In the garage above the bunker, police located further cannabis growing. A tray at the rear of the garage contained 28 cannabis seedlings with a heat pad, two heat pumps and an electronic timer, which were all plugged directly into a power source. The police also located small quantities of cannabis leaf material in various places in the garage.

[7] In the kitchen of the house, police located an electronic safe.…

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 LaHood

Details

AGLC: Police v LaHood [2012] NZHC 3462
Case: [2012] NZHC 3462
Decision Date: 17 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of New Zealand Police v Joseph Riki LaHood, the defendant pleaded guilty to cultivating cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The District Court referred the matter to the High Court due to the seriousness of the offence. The primary legal issue for the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for the defendant's cannabis cultivation, considering the quantity and sophistication of the operation, as well as the defendant's personal circumstances and mitigating factors.

The court noted that the defendant had set up a sophisticated cannabis growing operation in an underground bunker and in his garage, with various implements and materials to assist in cultivation. The bunker contained 108 cannabis plants, and there were additional plants and seedlings in the garage. The court also found evidence of dealing, including scales, bags, and text messages. The defendant claimed the cannabis was for personal use to alleviate his back pain, but the court found an element of commerciality in the operation.

In determining the sentence, the court considered the starting point for cannabis cultivation offences, which is guided by the Court of Appeal's decision in R v Terewi. The court assessed the defendant's offending as falling in the middle of category two of Terewi, warranting a starting point of three years imprisonment. The court applied a 25% discount for the defendant's early guilty plea, resulting in a final sentence of two years and three months imprisonment. The court also ordered the forfeiture of the cannabis, equipment, and drug paraphernalia found during the search.

This case highlights the importance of considering the quantity and sophistication of drug cultivation operations in determining an appropriate sentence. The court balanced the defendant's personal circumstances, including his injuries and claim of using cannabis for pain relief, against the seriousness of the offence and the need to hold the defendant accountable. The court's decision demonstrates that while personal circumstances may be considered in sentencing, they cannot excuse involvement in drug cultivation and dealing.

Orders