R v Bosson - [2012] NZHC 1956

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI 2012-021-325 [2012] NZHC 1956

THE QUEEN

v

ALISON JANE BOSSON

Hearing: 6 August 2012

Counsel: S A Law for Crown
R Rai for prisoner

Sentence: 6 August 2012

SENTENCING NOTES OF DOBSON J

[1] You are appearing today for sentence on four convictions of selling small quantities of cannabis. You are in this Court because a District Court Judge declined jurisdiction. That Court could only sentence you to a maximum of 12 months’ imprisonment, and the view of the Judge was that that was inadequate. The Judge considered a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment would be appropriate. Each of the convictions entered in these charges carries a maximum penalty of eight years’ imprisonment.

[2] Three of the convictions relate to single sales of one or two tinnies in November and December last year, and March this year. The fourth charge was a representative one, alleging sales by you to various unidentified persons between
4 March and 25 March this year. You acknowledged to the Police that you sold

R v BOSSON HC NWP CRI 2012-021-325 [6 August 2012]

small amounts of cannabis, in quantities of up to an ounce per week, in order to “put food on the table” for your family. Mr Rai submits that there was no regularity about the dealing, whereas the Police summary suggests that it was an average weekly amount. But rather, on Mr Rai’s instructions, you did it when you had the money to source the cannabis. On any view, this is small-scale commercial dealing in a class C drug.

[3] In all sentencings, the Sentencing Act 2002 (the Act) requires me to have regard to the purposes and principles of sentencing set out in ss 7 and 8 of the Act. The sentence has to hold you accountable for the harm done to the community by the offending, promote in you a sense of responsibility for, and an acknowledgement of, the harm, and to denounce this as illegal conduct. The sentencing also has to deter you and deter others from committing the same offence, but ultimately I have to be concerned in assisting with your rehabilitation.

[4] Guiding principles of sentencing involve the Court taking into account the gravity of the particular offending, your level of culpability for your offending, as well as the seriousness of this type of offending in comparison to others. It is desirable for the Court to be as consistent as it can in the appropriate level of sentence, relative to the offending that has similar characteristics. As Mr Rai has emphasised, I am obliged to impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances.

[5] In 1999, the Court of Appeal in R v Terewi reviewed the levels of sentences appropriate for different categories of cannabis cultivation and dealing.[1] Both counsel agree that your offending fits within category two from Terewi, which includes small-scale dealing for a commercial purpose. The starting points within that…

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 Bosson

Details

AGLC: R v Bosson [2012] NZHC 1956
Case: [2012] NZHC 1956
Decision Date: 6 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Alison Jane Bosson was convicted of selling small quantities of cannabis. The District Court had declined jurisdiction as it could only impose a sentence of up to 12 months' imprisonment, which was deemed inadequate. The High Court was required to determine an appropriate sentence. The court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing, including accountability, deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation. The court also considered the gravity of the offence, the level of culpability, and the seriousness of the offence in comparison to others. The court found that the offence fell within category two from R v Terewi, which includes small-scale dealing for commercial purposes. The starting point for this category was between two and four years' imprisonment. The court considered the amount of cannabis involved, the pattern of dealing, and the offender's early guilty plea. The court also considered the offender's personal circumstances, including financial pressure, lack of alcohol or drug dependency issues, and issues with gambling. The court was concerned about the offender's living arrangements, which had a reputation as a 'tinnie house'. The court imposed a term of eight months' home detention, together with 75 hours' community work. The court also imposed special conditions, including prohibitions on alcohol and non-prescription drugs, attendance at assessments and treatment programmes, and attendance at a parenting course.
The court ordered the offender to travel directly to the address of 432 Broadway, Stratford, and await the arrival of a Probation Officer and monitoring company representative. The offender was to remain at the address for the duration of the home detention unless with prior written approval of a Probation Officer. The offender was not to possess or consume alcohol or non-prescription drugs for the duration of the home detention. The offender was to attend an assessment for substance abuse and, if assessed as suitable, attend and complete any education, counselling or treatment programme as may be recommended to the satisfaction of the Probation Officer and the programme provider. The offender was to attend an assessment for budgeting advice and, if found suitable, to attend and complete any programme as may be recommended to the satisfaction of the Probation Officer and programme provider. The offender was to attend and complete a parenting course as may be directed to the satisfaction of the Probation Officer and the programme provider. The offender was to attend such appointments and responsibilities relating to the welfare and education of their dependent children as directed by the Probation Officer.

Orders