R v Dronsfield - [2021] NZHC 3042

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2020-009-007656

[2021] NZHC 3042

THE QUEEN

v

LEVI CHEYENNE DRONSFIELD

Hearing: 10 November 2021

Appearances:

K A White for the Crown

J D Lucas for the Defendant

Sentencing:

10 November 2021

SENTENCING REMARKS OF NATION J

[1] Mr Dronsfield, you understand don’t you that I have had written submissions from Mr Lucas and from Ms White for the Crown so I know what they were arguing could happen in this case and Mr Lucas has made a number of points for you. I have also had the pre-sentence report, which I hope you have seen, which provided me with a lot of information about you and where you are at at the moment. So, it is on the basis of all that I have been able to think about 10 what I need to sentence you for.

[2] Mr Dronsfield, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to one charge of cultivating cannabis.

[3] On 19 September 2020, the Police executed a search warrant at your house on unrelated matters and located 12 cannabis plants in the garage. The total weight of the

R v DRONSFIELD [2021] NZHC 3042 [10 November 2021]

cannabis seized from the garage was 6.21 kgs. You admitted to growing the cannabis and said all 12 plants belonged to you.

[4] Both your counsel and counsel for the Crown accept this sort of cannabis cultivation is towards the bottom end of category 1, as set out in R v Terewi.1

[5] For the Crown, Ms White acknowledged that offending of your sort will often attract a fine. That is consistent with other cases referred to me that have come before the High Court.2

[6] Terewi was decided in 1999 before enactment of the Sentencing Act 2002. With the Sentencing Act, there is a presumption in favour of the use of fines whenever a fine would constitute sufficient punishment for the offence and it is within the means of the offender to pay it.3

[7] Your counsel, Mr Lucas, acknowledges that, with you having fines already totalling $12,000, a fine may be inappropriate. The pre-sentence report also tells me you do not have regular employment at this stage but are hoping to establish your own business.

[8] Now, I am not satisfied you have the means to pay a fine. I also consider that the rehabilitative purposes of a sentence now need to be a priority and those purposes will be better achieved through the imposition of another sentence.

[9] Mr Dronsfield, you are now aged 28. You have a significant criminal record going back to when you started appearing in the Youth Court. You were sentenced to imprisonment for the first time in 2010 when you were just 17. In April 2012, you were sentenced to imprisonment for two years and two months for a series of offending including burglary, unlawfully taking a motor vehicle, possession of an…

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 Dronsfield

Details

AGLC: R v Dronsfield [2021] NZHC 3042
Case: [2021] NZHC 3042
Decision Date: 10 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of The Queen v Levi Cheyenne Dronsfield was heard, involving the defendant's guilty plea to cultivating cannabis. The court had to decide the appropriate sentence for Dronsfield, taking into account the circumstances of his offending, his criminal history, and the rehabilitative potential of a sentence. The central issue was whether the sentence should focus on punishment or rehabilitation, given Dronsfield's extensive criminal record and the circumstances surrounding the current offence.

The court noted that Dronsfield had a significant criminal history, with multiple prior convictions and sentences of imprisonment, as well as breaches of community-based sentences. The current offence, while serious, was discovered during a police search related to other charges. The court considered the Sentencing Act's presumption in favour of fines but concluded that a fine would be inappropriate due to Dronsfield's financial situation and prior fines. Instead, the court prioritised rehabilitation, acknowledging Dronsfield's expressed desire to change his lifestyle and associations to better support his children. The pre-sentence report and probation officer's recommendation supported a sentence focused on rehabilitation through intensive supervision and community detention. The court accepted the Crown's and defence's submissions that a sentence emphasising rehabilitation was suitable, given Dronsfield's recent involvement in other serious matters that led to the discovery of the cannabis plants.

The court sentenced Dronsfield to intensive supervision for 15 months, with specific conditions aimed at addressing his drug use and associations with harmful individuals. The sentence included a prohibition on alcohol and drug use, participation in an alcohol and drug programme, and completion of assessments and treatment as directed by probation officers. The court's decision was based on the need to provide Dronsfield with an opportunity to make significant changes in his life and avoid further imprisonment.

Orders