R v Crawford-Flett - [2012] NZHC 2273

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2010-044-004528 [2012] NZHC 2273

THE QUEEN

v

ROURKE PETER GREGORY CRAWFORD-FLETT

Hearing: 4 September 2012

Counsel: Z Johnston for the Crown
M Mann for Mr Crawford-Flett

Judgment: 4 September 2012

SENTENCE OF WOODHOUSE J

Solicitors:
Ms Z Johnston, Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Mr M Mann, Public Defence Service, North Shore

R V CRAWFORD-FLETT HC AK CRI-2010-044-004528 [4 September 2012]

[1] Mr Crawford-Flett, you may remain seated until I come to impose the formal sentence. I need to explain the sentence I am going to impose because I need to explain it not just to you and to Mrs Crawford-Flett but to the community as a whole.

[2] I do wish to state at the outset that I am going to impose a period of imprisonment. This is not a case in my judgment where home detention could be imposed. However, I do intend to impose what I regard as the absolute minimum, and that is 2 years imprisonment. I will explain how I arrive at that sentence.

[3] You appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to three charges. These are possession of cannabis for supply – the maximum penalty is 8 years imprisonment. There is a second charge of cultivating cannabis, and that has a maximum penalty of
7 years imprisonment. And there is the third offence of unlawful possession of the firearm, with a maximum penalty of 4 years imprisonment.

Facts

[4] An outline of the facts is as follows. On 21 April 2010 Police went to your property. They went for reasons quite unrelated to investigation of the matters that you are now before the Court for. They searched the property when they got there. They found approximately 200 cannabis plants growing outside – it was just under
200. These were at various stages of maturity. In a shed there were two rooms set up for drying cannabis, including drying racks and dehumidifiers. There were 9.3 kilograms of dried cannabis head. There was a pump action shotgun in your bedroom. You do not have a firearms license and never have had a firearms licence.

[5] You told Police that the cannabis was for personal use and that you grow a

year’s supply at a time. You said the shotgun was for your protection.

[6] There is evidence from a police officer with the necessary experience that each of the plants growing outside could have produced between 1 to 3 ounces of cannabis. There is evidence that the street level price is $300 an ounce. Taking the lower yield estimate for the plants that were growing, on that basis it could have

been sold in ounce lots for around $60,000. On the same basis the 9.3 kilograms of dried cannabis could have been sold for around $98,000. I do emphasise that those are estimates of sale and sale in particular weights on the street. There is in fact no direct evidence of your involvement in selling…

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 Crawford-Flett 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 2273
Decision Date: 4 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rourke Peter Gregory Crawford-Flett was sentenced by Woodhouse J for possession of cannabis for supply, cultivation of cannabis, and unlawful possession of a firearm. The court was required to decide on the appropriate sentence for each offence, taking into account the defendant's personal circumstances and the relevant legal principles. The court considered the maximum penalties for each offence, the defendant's previous convictions, and the quantity of cannabis involved in the offending. The court also considered the defendant's health problems and the lack of sophistication in the operation.

The court concluded that the starting point for the possession of cannabis for supply, with an uplift for cultivating cannabis, should be 3 years 3 months imprisonment. The sentence needed to be increased to take account of the firearms offence and the previous conviction for cultivating cannabis. However, the court decided to reduce the sentence by 9 months due to the defendant's health problems and guilty pleas. The court imposed a sentence of 2 years imprisonment for possession of cannabis for supply, 1 year 6 months for cultivating cannabis, and 1 year for unlawful possession of the firearm, to be served concurrently. The court also made an order for the destruction of the firearm and the cannabis equipment. The court concluded that home detention was not an available sentence, technically, nor was it one that should be imposed in this case.

Orders