R v Chadwick - [2013] NZHC 1591

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI 2013-043-320 [2013] NZHC 1591

THE QUEEN

v

ALTEN SIMON CHADWICK

Hearing: 27 June 2013

Counsel: J I Mooney for Crown
B Henderson for Prisoner

Sentence: 27 June 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF THE HON JUSTICE KÓS

[1] Mr Chadwick, you have pleaded guilty to the following charges: (a) possession of cannabis for supply;1
(b) cultivating cannabis;2

(c) stealing electricity (over $1,000);3 and

(d) receiving stolen property.4

[2] You appear for sentence in this Court after a District Court Judge declined jurisdiction.

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 9(1).
3      Crimes Act 1961, ss 219, 223(b).
4      Crimes Act 1961, ss 246, 247.

R v CHADWICK [2013] NZHC 1591 [27 June 2013]

Summary of offending

[3] A search warrant was executed at your address on 13 February 2013. The police found 17 tinnies (each containing approximately 0.8 grams of cannabis head), a box containing 1.1 grams of dried cannabis material, a jar containing 6.7 grams of dried cannabis material, 71 plants 30 – 40 cm tall, four dried plants 60 – 70 cm tall, two mature plants 120 cm tall, $3,420 cash inside a wooden clock, and garden mix, rooting hormone and other materials for propagation.

[4] One of the two bedrooms in the house was set aside for cultivation. There were also two rooms underneath the house set up for cultivation. The estimated harvest value of this operation is $99,400.

[5] A power meter box had been bypassed. Electricity worth $1,073 had been stolen.

[6] The police also found a bag of tools worth $800 that had been reported stolen from a building site. These had been given to you in exchange for cannabis. This forms the basis of the receiving charge.

Your circumstances

[7] You are 40 years old, and a heavy cannabis user. You were convicted of cultivation in May 1997, possession in 2000, and cultivation and possession for supply in December 2007. You have 14 dishonesty convictions, including three for receiving.

Submissions

[8] Counsel are agreed this case falls into category 2 in the guideline decision in

R v Terewi.5

[9] The Crown submits aggravating features present include premeditation (this being an ongoing and sophisticated set up), the commercial element of the offending, and, particularly, your previous convictions for both cannabis offending and dishonesty. Ms Mooney submits an appropriate starting point is three years imprisonment, with an uplift for the receiving, an uplift for the prior cannabis convictions of three months, reparation of $1073.10 for the theft, and then a 25% guilty plea discount.

[10] Your counsel, Mr Henderson, submits you are “hopelessly addicted” to cannabis. You use one and a half tinnies – or 1.2 grams of cannabis – a day. You started out cultivating for your own use which then intensified into operating your own tinnie house. It is said that you use cannabis heavily as an emotional block against the memory of you killing…

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 Chadwick

Details

AGLC: R v Chadwick [2013] NZHC 1591
Case: [2013] NZHC 1591
Decision Date: 27 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Alten Simon Chadwick, the defendant was found guilty of possession of cannabis for supply, cultivating cannabis, stealing electricity over $1,000, and receiving stolen property. The case was heard by Justice Kós in the High Court of New Zealand, New Plymouth Registry. The defendant's sentence was determined after a District Court Judge declined jurisdiction. The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering aggravating and mitigating factors, and calculating the appropriate sentence based on these factors.

The court considered the defendant's previous convictions for cannabis offences and dishonesty, which were deemed as aggravating factors. The court also took into account the commercial aspect of the defendant's cannabis cultivation and possession, as well as the premeditated nature of the offences. The defendant's guilty plea resulted in a 25% discount on the sentence. The court determined that the defendant's offending was less serious than some previous cases but more serious than others, and therefore set a starting point of two years and eight months' imprisonment for the cannabis charges, and three months for the theft and receiving charges. The sentences for the theft and receiving charges were to be served concurrently with the cannabis charges, with an additional three-month uplift to account for the totality of the offending.

In conclusion, the defendant was sentenced to a total of two years and four months' imprisonment, with all sentences to be served concurrently. The court also ordered the forfeiture of $3,420 found in the defendant's possession and made no order for reparation due to the defendant's personal circumstances. The defendant's previous cannabis convictions and the commercial nature of the offending were considered in determining the appropriate sentence.

Orders