R v Coe - [2012] NZHC 3242

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI-2012-021-468 [2012] NZHC 3242

THE QUEEN

v

STEVEN MARK COE

Charges: Possession of cannabis for supply; Unlawful possession of firearm

Plea: Guilty

Counsel: SA Law for Crown
R Rai for Prisoner

Sentenced: 3 December 2012
Cannabis – 1 year 9 months’ imprisonment
Firearm – 4 months’ imprisonment
(terms cumulative)
SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J

SOLICITORS
C&M Legal (New Plymouth) for Crown
Till Henderson (Stratford) for Prisoner

R V COE HC NWP CRI-2012-021-468 [3 December 2012]

Introduction

[1] Mr Coe, you are being sentenced today because you have pleaded guilty to one charge of possession of cannabis for the purpose of supply and one charge of unlawful possession of a firearm. Those offences carry maximum penalties of eight years’ imprisonment and four years’ imprisonment respectively.

[2] My job is to see where your case comes within the spectrum of sentences in this area. You are being sentenced here in the High Court because, on 14 August
2012, District Court Judge Roberts refused to sentence you and transferred the case to this Court for sentencing.

[3] I can set out the factual background fairly briefly.

Facts

[4] On 2 May 2012, the Police executed a search warrant at your address in Patea. There they found a .22 rifle, with the bolt, in the wardrobe of a bedroom. There was an empty magazine present and six rounds of ammunition. Located in the kitchen was a plastic bag containing a further 11 rounds of ammunition for the rifle. Of course, you do not hold a current firearms’ licence.

[5] Found in the same wardrobe was a 20 litre bucket which contained four shopping bags full of cannabis head. Also located in the wardrobe were a further three plastic bags containing cannabis head. Further loose cannabis head and some cannabis leaf was located around your house.

[6] The cannabis head together weighed 1295 grams and the cannabis leaf

198 grams. I am not going to consider the cannabis leaf as having any part to play in this sentencing. I am aware that it is called cabbage. It has little or no commercial value and the quantity here is not worth worrying about. However, the cannabis head is conservatively estimated as being worth $7,500.

[7] Your explanation to the Police was that you had grown the cannabis that was found. You said that it was for your personal medicinal use. You did acknowledge that you would give some of it away and that you would swap some of it for food. As to the .22 rifle, you said that that had been left at your address a few weeks earlier by a friend.

Approach to sentencing

[8] Let me just explain how I have to look at these facts in order to come to a final sentence.

[9] Firstly, the cannabis charge and the firearms charge are different kinds of offences and they are not connected by the facts in your case. That means 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 Coe

Details

AGLC: R v Coe [2012] NZHC 3242
Case: [2012] NZHC 3242
Decision Date: 3 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Steven Mark Coe was sentenced by Justice Brewer for charges of possession of cannabis for supply and unlawful possession of a firearm. The charges stemmed from a search warrant executed on 2 May 2012 at Coe’s residence in Patea, where police discovered a significant amount of cannabis and a .22 rifle with ammunition. Coe pleaded guilty to both charges and the case was transferred to the High Court for sentencing after the District Court declined to sentence him.

The legal issues the court had to decide included determining the appropriate starting points for each offence, considering the purposes and principles of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002, and adjusting the sentences based on Coe’s personal circumstances, including his criminal history and the discount for his early guilty plea. The court had to ensure that the sentences for each offence were served consecutively due to their distinct nature and non-connectedness.

Justice Brewer set the starting point for the cannabis charge at two years’ imprisonment, reflecting the lower end of category 2 as per R v Terewi. Given Coe’s extensive history with drug-related offences and his previous convictions, the court imposed an uplift of four months for the cannabis charge. For the firearms charge, a starting point of four months’ imprisonment was set, considering the explanation that the firearm was left by a friend. The court applied a 25% discount for Coe’s early guilty plea to each charge, resulting in a final sentence of one year and nine months’ imprisonment for the cannabis charge and four months’ imprisonment for the firearms charge, to be served cumulatively.

The final orders included a sentence of one year and nine months’ imprisonment for the cannabis charge and four months’ imprisonment for the firearms charge, to be served consecutively, totaling two years and one month’s imprisonment. Additionally, the court granted the Crown’s application for the destruction of the seized cannabis, firearm, and ammunition under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and the Arms Act 1983.

Orders