R v Brazendale (Sentence) HC Auckland CRI 2009-092-17133

[2010] NZHC 1408

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2009-092-17133

THE QUEEN

v

DANIEL GEOFFREY BRAZENDALE

Hearing:         20 August 2010

Appearances: D G Johnstone for Crown

H M Craven-McLeay for Accused

Judgment:      20 August 2010

SENTENCE OF COOPER J

Solicitors:

Meredith Connell, Crown Solicitors, PO Box 2213, Upper Shortland Street, Auckland 1140

Copy to:

P J Kaye, PO Box 941, Auckland

R V BRAZENDALE HC AK CRI-2009-092-17133 [20 August 2010]

[1]      Mr Brazendale, you are before the Court for sentence having pleaded guilty and been convicted of an offence against s 9(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 which alleged that you cultivated cannabis.   Sixty-two cannabis plants were discovered by the police when they executed a search warrant at your home at

4 Woodward Avenue, Mangere Bridge, Auckland.   The plants were being grown hydroponically in  a  modified  bedroom  of  that  property and  further  plants  were growing in a glasshouse at the rear of the property.  Cannabis related equipment was also found at a property at 12 Waterfront Road which you also own as a trustee.

[2]      In a judgment that has been delivered earlier this morning I discussed in more detail the circumstances of the offending and concluded that it must have had a substantial commercial purpose.   A copy of the judgment will be attached to the record of this sentence and should be read together with it to further explain the reasons for the order I am about to make.  In the judgment, I held that the offending was such as would warrant a term of imprisonment of 18 months, calculated on the basis that the offending itself merited a term of imprisonment of two years three months, which should be reduced by one-third on account of your early guilty plea.

[3]      For reasons set out in the judgment I also made an instrument forfeiture order.  The consequence of that order is that the property at 4 Woodward Avenue is now vested in the Crown absolutely and that it is in the custody and control of the Official Assignee.  I am satisfied that the instrument forfeiture order means that it is unnecessary for any of the purposes set out in s 8 of the Sentencing Act to impose any further sanction.

[4]      As a consequence, Mr Brazendale having been previously convicted on the basis of your guilty plea, you are now discharged and you are free to go.