R v Anderson - [2007] NZCA 146

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA425/06
[2007] NZCA 146
THE QUEEN
v
MEGHAN LEIGH ANDERSON
Hearing:16 April 2007

Court:William Young P, Potter and Fogarty JJ
Counsel:M F Laracy and K Laurenson for Crown

M I Sewell for Respondent

Judgment:23 April 2007 at 3 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A   The Solicitor-General is granted leave to appeal.
BThe appeal is allowed and the sentence of community service is set aside.
CThe following sentences (to be served concurrently) are substituted:
·      22 months imprisonment on the charges of possession of equipment and possession of a precursor substance.
·      Two months imprisonment on the two charges of possession of pipes.
·      The respondent is convicted and discharged on the charge of possession of cannabis seeds.
DLeave to apply for home detention is granted.
EThe start date of the sentence is deferred for two months. Bail is granted on the conditions set out in [50]E.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Potter J)

Introduction

[1]       The Solicitor-General seeks leave to appeal under s 383(2) Crimes Act 1961 against the effective sentence of 150 hours community service and 12 months supervision imposed on the respondent Megan Leigh Anderson in the District Court at Christchurch on 1 November 2006.

[2]       The Solicitor-General submits the sentence is manifestly inadequate and wrong in principle and that a sentence of imprisonment in the vicinity of two years should have been imposed. The respondent submits that in all the circumstances the sentence imposed was one available to the sentencing Judge.

Charges

[3]       The respondent entered guilty pleas to:

a)          One count of possession of equipment capable of being used to manufacture methamphetamine (s 12A(2)(a) and (3)(b)) Misuse of Drugs Act 1975). The maximum sentence is five years imprisonment. The guilty plea was entered two days prior to trial.

b)         One count of possession of a precursor substance capable of being used for producing methamphetamine (s 12A(2)(b) Misuse of Drugs Act 1975). The maximum sentence is five years imprisonment. The guilty plea was entered at depositions.

c)          One count of possession of two pipes for smoking methamphetamine (s 13(1)(a) and (3) Misuse of Drugs Act 1975). The maximum sentence is one year imprisonment or $500 fine, or both. The guilty plea was entered at the first call after the indictment was filed.

d)         One count of possession of a pipe for smoking cannabis (s 13(1)(a) and (3) Misuse of Drugs Act 1975). The maximum sentence is one year imprisonment or a $500 fine, or both. The guilty plea was entered at the first call after the indictment was filed.

e)          One count of possession of cannabis seeds (s 7(1)(a) and (2) Misuse of Drugs Act 1975). The maximum sentence is three months imprisonment or $500 fine, or both. The guilty plea was entered two days prior to trial.

Factual background

[4]       On 4 April 2006 the Police executed a search warrant at the respondent’s home at 56 Joy Street, Christchurch. They found a number of items used in…

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 [2007] NZCA 146
Case: [2007] NZCA 146
Decision Date: 23 April 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the appeal of R v Anderson, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand considered an appeal by the Solicitor-General against the sentence of 150 hours of community service and 12 months supervision imposed on Meghan Leigh Anderson by the District Court. The Crown argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and wrong in principle, and that a term of imprisonment should have been imposed instead. The appeal centred on the legal issues of whether the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly inadequate, and if so, whether it should be set aside and replaced with a custodial sentence.

The Court found that the sentence was both wrong in principle and manifestly inadequate, as it did not align with the established principles and aims of the Sentencing Act 2002. The Court further determined that the sentence indication process did not comply with the District Court Bench Book standards, as the Crown was not given an opportunity to present a sentencing memorandum to the Judge before the sentencing indication was given. As a result, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the original sentence, and substituted the following sentences: 22 months imprisonment on the charges of possession of equipment and possession of a precursor substance, two months imprisonment on the two charges of possession of pipes, and the respondent was convicted and discharged on the charge of possession of cannabis seeds. The Court also granted leave to apply for home detention and deferred the start date of the sentence for two months. Bail was granted on the conditions set out in [50].

Orders