R v Anderson - [2013] NZHC 3079

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

CRI-2012-025-002416 [2013] NZHC 3079

THE QUEEN

v

BRODIE RAYMOND ANDERSON

Hearing: 19 November 2013

Appearances: M J Thomas for Crown
S Vidal for Prisoner

Judgment: 19 November 2013

JUDGMENT OF D GENDALL J

[1] Brodie Raymond Anderson, you appear for sentence following guilty pleas to first, three charges of cultivation of cannabis under ss 9(1) and (2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975; six charges of possession of cannabis for the purposes of sale under ss 6(1)(f) and 6(2)(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975; and 15 charges of offering to sell cannabis under ss 6(1)(e) and 6(2)(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

[2] You have previously pleaded guilty to a single charge of possession of cannabis for the purpose of sale and this charge is inter-related to the charges currently before the Court.

[3] As to background facts, the charges all arise out of a lengthy and complex police surveillance operation known as Operation Canary. The defendant, Mr Anderson came within the purview of the operation as a result of surveillance carried out by the police primarily on his father and other persons. The police also obtained warrants authorising them to intercept text messages sent to and by the
defendant and other persons suspected to be involved in a large scale cannabis

R v ANDERSON [2013] NZHC 3079 [19 November 2013]

cultivation operation. These revealed that between June 2011 and April 2012 the defendant had offered to supply cannabis to associates on 42 separate occasions. On seven of these he had actually been in possession of cannabis for the purpose of supplying it to others.

[4] Although it is not specifically recorded in the summary, the defendant also accepts that he played a part in harvesting 64 cannabis plants at two separate sites in the 2010/2011 cannabis growing season.

[5] The third cultivation charge arises as a result of events that occurred in April

2012. From intercepted conversations, the police learnt that the defendant and his father proposed to harvest cannabis in a plot near a stream known as the Hump Burn Stream and to then hang it out to dry. On the same day the defendant had a chance meeting in the bush with a police officer involved in the investigation. This officer noticed a strong smell of cannabis emanating from the defendant.

[6] On 16 April 2012 the police intercepted a further conversation between Mr Anderson and his father in which the defendant was to dry and manicure a quantity of cannabis that he was in possession of at his home address. This prompted the police to obtain and execute a search warrant in respect of the defendant’s home address which occurred on 17 April 2012. In the bedroom at that address the police located a large amount of cannabis that had been laid out to dry. In the hallway outside that room the police found a rubbish bin containing a quantity of cannabis…

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 [2013] NZHC 3079
Case: [2013] NZHC 3079
Decision Date: 19 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brodie Raymond Anderson was sentenced by D Gendall J in the High Court of New Zealand for multiple charges related to cannabis cultivation, possession, and sale. The charges stemmed from a police surveillance operation known as Operation Canary, which revealed Anderson's involvement in a large-scale cannabis cultivation and distribution network. Anderson had offered to supply cannabis on multiple occasions and was found in possession of significant quantities at various stages of processing.

The legal issues before the court included determining an appropriate starting point for sentencing in accordance with the principles set out in the case of Terewi, applying any uplifts or discounts for aggravating or mitigating factors, and deciding on the most suitable form of sentence. Anderson had previously accepted a sentencing indication, which proposed a starting point of two years and three months imprisonment, uplifted by nine months due to post-harvest involvement, with a potential full 25% discount for his guilty pleas. The court considered personal circumstances, including Anderson's limited criminal history, his employment situation, and his family responsibilities.

After reviewing these factors, the court decided on an end sentence of two years imprisonment, with a 10% discount for his lack of previous drug offending, his remorse, and his relative youth, followed by a 25% discount for his guilty pleas. The court also granted Anderson leave to apply for home detention if a suitable address could be provided. The sentence was accompanied by conditions requiring Anderson to undertake treatment and participate in a departmental programme.

The final orders of the court were for Anderson to serve a sentence of two years imprisonment, subject to the possibility of home detention, and to comply with the specified treatment and programme conditions.

Orders