R v Croft - [2012] NZHC 3010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2012-088-2280 [2012] NZHC 3010

THE QUEEN

v

WARREN CRAIG CROFT

Hearing: 13 November 2012

Counsel: TL Nicholls for Crown
SK Ellis for Prisoner

Judgment: 13 November 2012

SENTENCING NOTES OF RODNEY HANSEN J

Solicitors: Marsden Woods Inskip & Smith, P O Box 146, Whangarei 0140 for Respondent
(Email: toddn@mwis.co.nz )
Ms SK Ellis, 2 Rathbone Street, Whangarei
(Email: ellis.law@xtra.co.nz)

R V WARREN CRAIG CROFT HC WHA CRI-2012-088-2280 [13 November 2012]

[1] Mr Croft, you appear for sentence on three counts of selling a Class C drug, namely cannabis. You pleaded guilty to those charges in the District Court which declined jurisdiction to sentence you and transferred sentencing to this Court where there is a fuller range of sentencing options available. There are also two outstanding charges of breach of community work and, arising out of those breaches, an application to cancel the sentence of community work and substitute some other sentence.

Background

[2] The cannabis offending was detected in the course of a covert operation carried out by the police in Northland during the period late 2011 to mid-2012. On three occasions, between 23 March and 31 May 2012, a special duties constable went to the home that you shared with your co-accused, Genevieve Jamieson. On each occasion you sold the constable a cannabis tinny for $20.

[3] The charge of breach of community work needs no further discussion as I have been informed this morning that the community work sentence has now been completed. On that basis, I propose simply to convict and discharge you on those charges and dismiss the application to substitute the sentence.

Personal circumstances

[4] You are a 24-year-old man, currently unemployed. The pre-sentence report tells me very little about your background. The reason for that has been explained to me by the representative of the Probation Service who is present in Court. I am told that the District Court has, for its own reasons, sought a much abbreviated pre- sentence report which will often result in the exclusion of background detail. It is just such detail, however, that is highly relevant to sentence in a case such as this and I have gleaned additional relevant information from Ms Ellis and by direct questioning of you.

[5] You have previous convictions, none of them, however, in the serious category and none which could have led, as the current charges do, to a sentence of imprisonment. You told me that you have trained as a spraypainter and have aspirations to work as a signwriter. There are also employment opportunities potentially available to you through your father who is a roading sub-contractor.

[6] There are indications, which you have confirmed, that you are prone to depression. It appears, however, that to date you have not had any counselling for that or any other problems that you might have.

[7] The pre-sentence report attributes your offending to an unstructured lifestyle, inferentially a poor choice of associates and substance abuse.…

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 Croft

Details

AGLC: R v Croft [2012] NZHC 3010
Case: [2012] NZHC 3010
Decision Date: 13 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Warren Craig Croft was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand for three counts of selling a Class C drug, namely cannabis. The cannabis offenses were detected during a covert police operation in Northland, New Zealand, between late 2011 and mid-2012. The defendant pleaded guilty to these charges in the District Court, which declined jurisdiction to sentence him and transferred the matter to the High Court for a broader range of sentencing options. The defendant also faced two charges of breaching community work, for which he was convicted and discharged. The court considered the defendant's personal circumstances, including his employment history, aspirations, and mental health issues. The defendant had no prior serious convictions but had engaged in drug dealing to meet financial and parental responsibilities.

The court examined the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering the defendant's culpability and the nature of his offending. The Crown argued for a starting point of two years and six months, but the court determined that a starting point of two years imprisonment adequately reflected the defendant's culpability. The court also considered aggravating and mitigating features of the case and concluded that the defendant's guilty plea warranted a 25% discount to the starting point, leading to a potential prison sentence of 18 months.

The court then assessed whether a sentence of home detention could be appropriately imposed, considering the defendant's personal circumstances and potential for rehabilitation. The court found that the defendant's aspirations for the future, recognition of his present position, and the support available to him made a sentence of home detention appropriate in his case. The defendant was sentenced to nine months of home detention, to be served at his father's home, who was supportive of him and could provide employment opportunities. The defendant was also receptive to suggestions that he undertake counseling to address his personal issues and had genuine aspirations to change the lifestyle that led to his current offending.

Final Orders:

1. On the three counts of selling a Class C controlled drug, the defendant is sentenced to nine months of home detention, with the conditions set out in the home detention report.
2. On the two charges of breach of community work, the defendant is convicted and discharged.

Orders