R v Coombes - [2013] NZHC 70

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CRI 2012-020-3125 [2013] NZHC 70

QUEEN

v

GARETH NIGEL COOMBES

Hearing: 5 February 2013

Counsel: N M Graham for Crown
M Phelps for Prisoner

Sentence: 5 February 2013

REVISED SENTENCING NOTES OF THE HON JUSTICE KÓS

Introduction

[1] Mr Coombes, you pleaded guilty on 27 November 2012, in the District Court, to one charge of cultivation of cannabis,1 one of possession of cannabis for the purpose of sale,2 and one of sale of cannabis.3

[2] The District Court declined jurisdiction to sentence you. It therefore falls to me to do so.

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 9(1).
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f).
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(e).

R v COOMBES HC NAP CRI 2012-020-3125 [5 February 2013]

Details of offending

[3] I will summarise, briefly, your offending.

[4] On Thursday 1 November 2012 the Police executed a search warrant at your home in Flaxmere. The garage on the property contained 250 individually potted cannabis plants in two insulated tents and a room lined with reflective paper. Each was equipped with a system of lights with timing switches, ventilation fans and filters. Another brand new tent had been set up with the intention of expanding the operation.

[5]      The specific amounts of cannabis found were as follows: (a)      64 cannabis plants – approximately 1m in height; (b)      30 cannabis plants – 30cm to 1m in height;
(c)      25 cannabis plants – 40cm to 50cm in height; (d)      51 cannabis plants – 20cm to 30cm in height; (e)      80 cannabis plants – seedlings;
(f)       30 grams of cannabis head which was found on a drying board in the garage.

[6] You admit to selling up to 25 ounces of cannabis since you began cultivation in January 2012, at $300 per ounce. Much of this money may have been reinvested in your start-up growing operation. Your explanation to the police, when apprehended, was that you were trying to make some money to fund home improvements. Your counsel characterised all this as a gross error of judgment.

[7] Counsel for the Crown put it in these terms “a conscious and deliberate

decision to grow cannabis which you knew to be illegal to sell to others, to put it into

the community to make money”. I agree with the Crown’s characterisation of your

conduct.

[8] A Police expert estimates your operation could have produced an annual turnover of around $80,000.

[9] Police located $4,020 in cash in your bedroom. You admit that sum was derived from the sale of cannabis.

Personal circumstances, Pre-sentence Report and prior offending

[10] I turn now to your personal circumstances. You are 29 years of age. Together with your partner of four years, you own a house in Flaxmere. You live there with your six month old child. You are a qualified butcher. You now work as an operations manager at an insulation business. You have 12 staff members working to you.

[11]…

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 Coombes

Details

AGLC: R v Coombes [2013] NZHC 70
Case: [2013] NZHC 70
Decision Date: 5 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gareth Nigel Coombes has been found guilty of cultivating, possessing for the purpose of sale, and selling cannabis. The case was heard by the High Court of New Zealand in Napier, where the District Court had previously declined jurisdiction to sentence Coombes. The primary legal issues the court had to decide were the appropriate starting point for sentencing and whether to impose a sentence of community detention or home detention. The court considered the sophistication of Coombes' cannabis operation, his previous criminal record, and his expressed remorse in determining the sentence. The court decided on a starting point of three years' imprisonment, which was then reduced by 15% for mitigating factors and a further 25% for Coombes' early guilty plea, resulting in a sentence of 22 months' imprisonment. However, considering the purposes of sentencing, the court opted for a sentence of six months' community detention and 300 hours of community work instead of imprisonment. The court believed that this sentence would better facilitate Coombes' rehabilitation and reintegration into society, while also holding him accountable for his actions. The final orders include a forfeiture of the $4,020 cash found at Coombes' address.

Orders