R v Christison - [2012] NZHC 2067

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CRI-2012-041-418 [2012] NZHC 2067

THE QUEEN

v

SAMUEL ERIC CHRISTISON

Hearing: 15 August 2012

Appearances: R J Collins for Crown
N C Hewat for Prisoner

Sentence: 15 August 2012

SENTENCING REMARKS OF PETERS J

Solicitors: Elvidge & Partners, Crown Solicitor, Napier: russell.collins@elvidges.co.nz

Counsel: N C Hewat, PO Box 636, Napier 4140

R V CHRISTISON HC NAP CRI-2012-041-418 [15 August 2012]

Introduction

[1] Mr Christison, I am sentencing you on two charges, to which you have pleaded guilty:

(a) The first is offering to sell a Class C drug, namely cannabis.[1] This charge concerns the period 30 December 2011 to 29 January 2012.

(b)The second charge is possession for sale of a Class C drug, namely cannabis,[2] on 14 February 2012.

[1] Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(e) and 6(2)(c).

[2] Ibid, ss 6(1)(f) and 6(2)(c).

[2] You pleaded guilty to these charges on 11 April 2012. The maximum penalty on each charge is eight years’ imprisonment.

Facts

[3] The facts are as follows. In late December 2011, the Police became aware that you were selling cannabis. By looking at your cell phone records the Police found that you had made at least 32 separate offers to sell cannabis between
30 December 2011 and 29 January 2012.

[4] The Police obtained and executed a search warrant at your home in February

2012. They found 14 snap-lock bags, five containing cannabis and nine containing cannabis plant material. The total cannabis that the Police found that day was
12.6 grams.

[5] You admitted to the Police that you had been selling cannabis to friends and associates for some time, and that you sold between a half and an ounce of cannabis every three to four days. You earned something from these activities, although
precisely how much is in dispute.

Personal circumstances

[6] You are 21. You have 13 previous convictions, all acquired since 2009, at which time you would have been 18. These convictions include two for possession of cannabis and some driving offences and breaches of community-based sentences.

[7] You have developed a serious dependency on cannabis, and you say that, at least in part, your offending was so you could sustain your addiction. From the pre- sentence report which I have read it appears that you began smoking cannabis regularly when you were 15, following the death of your mother and as a way to get some relief from the stress and grief that would have caused you.

[8] To compound that matter, you were subject to an assault when you were aged

16. That was an assault to the head which caused you further difficulties and more recently your child has died. So, at a young age, Mr Christison it is fair to say you have had to deal with events that many people would not have to deal with for many years, and some they would not have to deal with at all.

[9] As I have said, I…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Christison and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] NZHC 2067
Decision Date: 15 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Christison, the defendant was sentenced on two charges of drug-related offences. Samuel Eric Christison pleaded guilty to offering to sell a Class C drug, namely cannabis, and possessing it for sale. The maximum penalty for each charge was eight years' imprisonment. The court heard that the defendant had made at least 32 separate offers to sell cannabis between 30 December 2011 and 29 January 2012. A search of his home in February 2012 uncovered 12.6 grams of cannabis. The defendant admitted to selling cannabis to friends and associates regularly, earning from these activities.

The court considered the defendant's personal circumstances, including his age, previous convictions, and his cannabis dependency, which he attributed partly to the stress and grief following the death of his mother. The court also took into account the defendant's efforts towards rehabilitation, including attending sessions with Hawke's Bay Addiction Services and enrolling in studies at the Eastern Institute of Technology.

In sentencing, the court identified the lead offence as the charge of offering to sell cannabis and set a starting point of two years, four months' imprisonment. The court then adjusted the starting point, reducing the sentence by three months due to the defendant's age and another three months considering the personal circumstances. A further 20 per cent reduction was allowed for the defendant's guilty pleas. Consequently, the court sentenced the defendant to 17 to 18 months' imprisonment. However, as this was less than two years' imprisonment, the court considered home detention as an appropriate alternative. The court imposed a sentence of nine months' home detention on the charge of offering to sell and three months' on the charge of possession for sale, to be served concurrently. The defendant was also subject to various conditions, including residing at a specified address, abstaining from illicit drug use, and undertaking alcohol and drug counselling.

Orders