R v Anderson - [2022] NZHC 2360

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2020-070-2302

[2022] NZHC 2360

THE KING

v

SHERRY LEE ANDERSON

Hearing: 14 September 2022 (Heard at Hamilton)

Appearances:

P Lee for Crown

J S Gurnick for Defendant

Sentence:

14 September 2022

SENTENCING REMARKS OF PETERS J

Solicitors: Pollett Legal, Crown Solicitor, Tauranga Counsel: J S Gurnick, Hamilton

R v ANDERSON [2022] NZHC 2360 [14 September 2022]

[1] Ms Anderson, you appear for sentence today one charge of possession of cannabis for sale, one charge of cultivating cannabis, and one representative charge of money laundering.

[2] I know you will be wondering just how this sentencing process works. What I intend to do is summarise the background to the offending and what I know of your circumstances, and then I shall undertake the sentencing exercise. You will not know your sentence until I get to the very end which could take me 10 or 15 minutes, so do not jump to any conclusions on the way through.

Background

[3] Insofar as concerns the background to the offending, the money laundering charge arises from Operation Emoji. This uncovered a large-scale network for the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine in the Bay of Plenty. The Police terminated the operation in mid-2020.

[4] Your nephew, Calebh Simpson, was at the centre of this network. In the course of investigating and monitoring Mr Simpson and his activities, the Police became aware that he had involved members of his family, including you, in hiding funds and assets, including several motor vehicles. Your involvement was to receive cash, and deposit it into your account, and then to make payments on account of Mr Simpson’s legal expenses. You also accepted the transfer of a vehicle into your name. There is no suggestion, however, that you profited from any of this or from your nephew’s wider activities.

[5] In connection with your involvement in the money laundering, the Police executed a search warrant at your home in Ngāruawāhia. This is how they discovered your cannabis offending. The Police found four purpose built tents with filtration, air flow, lighting, and temperature control systems. They found a total of 46 cannabis plants, which they estimate would yield up to $60,000 if grown to maturity.

[6]In addition, the Police located 2.3 kilograms of cannabis head material and

7.14 kilograms of cannabis material and stalks with an approximate street value of between $25,000 and $30,000. Your lawyer, Mr Gurnick, in his submissions tells me that the 7.14 kilograms was waste material, and therefore the possession charge only involves the 2.3 kilograms of cannabis head. That, however, is not in the agreed summary of facts so I shall put it to one side.

[7] It is accepted in the summary that you grew and supplied the cannabis for medicinal and recreational purposes, but that you also sold some of it. The suggestion that at least some of the cannabis was for medicinal purposes is supported by…

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 R v Anderson

Details

AGLC: R v Anderson [2022] NZHC 2360
Case: [2022] NZHC 2360
Decision Date: 14 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sherry Lee Anderson was before the Court on charges of possession of cannabis for sale, cultivating cannabis, and money laundering. The Court was required to decide the appropriate sentence for these offences, taking into account the circumstances of the offending and the personal circumstances of the offender. The Court determined a starting point for the sentence based on the nature and scale of the offending, and then adjusted this starting point to reflect the personal circumstances of the offender. The Court found that the offender's operation was substantial but started as a way of helping her father. The Court accepted that any sales had been modest and that money had never been the object. The Court determined a starting point of 21 months for the cannabis offences and an uplift of three months for the money laundering offence. The Court then considered mitigating factors such as the offender's previous good character, guilty pleas, and remorse. The Court allowed a 10% reduction for the offender's good character and a 15% reduction for her guilty pleas. The Court did not allow a separate discount for remorse. The final sentence was six months' community detention, with a curfew at the offender's home address in Ngāruawāhia. The Court also made an order for the forfeiture of the drugs, paraphernalia, and any other articles used in the commission of the offence.

The Court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the circumstances of the offending and the personal circumstances of the offender. The Court found that the offender's operation was substantial but started as a way of helping her father. The Court accepted that any sales had been modest and that money had never been the object. The Court determined a starting point of 21 months for the cannabis offences and an uplift of three months for the money laundering offence. The Court then considered mitigating factors such as the offender's previous good character, guilty pleas, and remorse. The Court allowed a 10% reduction for the offender's good character and a 15% reduction for her guilty pleas. The Court did not allow a separate discount for remorse. The final sentence was six months' community detention, with a curfew at the offender's home address in Ngāruawāhia. The Court also made an order for the forfeiture of the drugs, paraphernalia, and any other articles used in the commission of the offence. The Court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the circumstances of the offending and the personal circumstances of the offender. The Court found that the offender's operation was substantial but started as a way of helping her father. The Court accepted that any sales had been modest and that money had never been the object. The Court determined a starting point of 21 months for the cannabis offences and an uplift of three months for the money laundering offence. The Court then considered mitigating factors such as the offender's previous good character, guilty pleas, and remorse. The Court allowed a 10% reduction for the offender's good character and a 15% reduction for her guilty pleas. The Court did not allow a separate discount for remorse. The final sentence was six months' community detention, with a curfew at the offender's home address in Ngāruawāhia. The Court also made an order for the forfeiture of the drugs, paraphernalia, and any other articles used in the commission of the offence. The Court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the circumstances of the offending and the personal circumstances of the offender. The Court found that the offender's operation was substantial but started as a way of helping her father. The Court accepted that any sales had been modest and that money had never been the object. The Court determined a starting point of 21 months for the cannabis offences and an uplift of three months for the money laundering offence. The Court then considered mitigating factors such as the offender's previous good character, guilty pleas, and remorse. The Court allowed a 10% reduction for the offender's good character and a 15% reduction for her guilty pleas. The Court did not allow a separate discount for remorse. The final sentence was six months' community detention, with a curfew at the offender's home address in Ngāruawāhia. The Court also made an order for the forfeiture of the drugs, paraphernalia, and any other articles used in the commission of the offence.

Orders