R v Cassidy - [2018] NZHC 2797

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-092-4045 [2018] NZHC 2797

THE QUEEN

v

RUTH CASSIDY

Counsel:
J V Barry for Crown

J W Clearwater for Defendant

Sentenced:

30 October 2018

Charges:

Supplying methamphetamine

Plea:

Guilty

SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Crown
Clearwater & Associates (Auckland) for Defendant

R v CASSIDY [2018] NZHC 2797 [30 October 2018]

Introduction

[1] Ms Cassidy, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of supplying methamphetamine.1 The maximum penalty for this offence is life imprisonment.2

[2] The goal of your lawyer is to have me sentence you to home detention rather than to a period of imprisonment. The fact that you have breached your bail and have arrived at Court 35 minutes late is not an encouraging start to your lawyer’s efforts on your behalf. But I am going to put that to one side because I think the bigger picture in your case requires me to do so.

The offending

[3] Between 21 August 2017 and 6 September 2017, your former partner was living with you at your family home. I am told you and he have a child together who is now four years old.

[4] During this quite short period, your partner sold methamphetamine to a considerable extent. You knew this. His customers would come to your family home to buy methamphetamine from him. Eventually, your family objected to this and so he began to deliver methamphetamine to his customers instead.

[5] At times when your partner was unavailable, you supplied methamphetamine on his behalf. The summary of facts states that the total amount of methamphetamine you supplied is unknown. However, two occasions are detailed.

[6] On 21 August 2017, your partner sent you a text message saying, “Make sure he gives 9 hun and tick him two grams.” You responded, “Ok babe.”

[7] On 25 August 2017, an unknown person purchased 0.5 grams of methamphetamine from your partner. You helped in the transaction by yourself supplying the methamphetamine and receiving payment.

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c).
2 Section 6(2)(a).

[8] In addition, when interviewed by Police, you told them that you would sometimes drop off methamphetamine to your partner’s customers when he had no transport. The amounts involved in these drop-offs is not specified.

Starting point

[9] There is a case called R v Fatu3 which sets out sentencing bands depending upon the amount of methamphetamine involved. The Crown submits your offending falls into the bottom of band two. This is presumably on the basis that you must have supplied at least five grams of methamphetamine. The Crown suggests a starting point of three years’ imprisonment, which is at the very bottom of band two.

[10] Your lawyer, Mr Clearwater, has told me in his written submissions on your behalf that, in his view, your offending falls into band one of Fatu and he suggests a starting point of two-and-a-half years’…

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 Cassidy

Details

AGLC: R v Cassidy [2018] NZHC 2797
Case: [2018] NZHC 2797
Decision Date: 30 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Ruth Cassidy pleaded guilty to supplying methamphetamine in the High Court of New Zealand. The court was required to determine her sentence for the offence, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The primary legal issues were the appropriate sentencing band based on the quantity of methamphetamine supplied and whether the sentence should be imprisonment or home detention. The court considered the defendant's role in the offence, her limited involvement, and mitigating factors such as her remorse and the impact of her sentence on her young child. The Crown suggested a starting point at the bottom of band two for the quantity of methamphetamine supplied, while the defence argued for band one. The court ultimately placed the offending in band one due to the peripheral nature of the defendant's role and the limited quantities supplied. The court further reduced the starting point by 45% for remorse, prospects of rehabilitation, and the defendant's plea of guilty, resulting in a sentence of one year and eight months’ imprisonment. However, the court commuted the sentence to 10 months’ home detention, considering it the least restrictive outcome appropriate in the circumstances, taking into account the purposes of sentencing, the defendant's low risk of reoffending, and her care for a young child.

The final orders of the court included the defendant being sentenced to 10 months’ home detention, to be served at a specified address, with conditions that she not consume any non-prescription drugs, undertake appropriate assessment, treatment, and/or counselling, and complete an alcohol and drug rehabilitation programme to the satisfaction of a probation officer.

Orders