R v Griffin

[2024] NZHC 1309

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2021-088-2754

[2024] NZHC 1309

THE KING

v

MARCELLA GRIFFEN

Hearing:	23 May 2024
Counsel:	B M O’Connor for Crown B J Hunt for Defendant
Judgment:	23 May 2024

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

(Applications in respect of sentencing)

Solicitors/Counsel:

Marsden Woods Inskip Smith (Whangārei) for Crown Barbara Hunt (Auckland) for Defendant

R v GRIFFEN [2024] NZHC 1309 [23 May 2024]

Introduction

[1]                Ms Griffen applies for orders transferring her case to the District Court and for an adjournment of the sentencing for a period of a year to enable her to continue her rehabilitative progress.

[2]Before I address those applications, I will give some background.

Background

[3]                Ms Griffen has pleaded guilty to extremely serious drugs charges. They are importing methamphetamine, conspiring to import methamphetamine and being a member of an organised criminal group.

[4]                Ms Griffen, on 13 December 2023, received something of a sentence indication from Becroft J. At [49] his Honour said to Ms Griffen:

However, it would not be inappropriate for me to say that, given my findings in this hearing, the twelve-and-a-half to thirteen-year starting point I indicated for Mr Gillett self-evidently cannot apply to Ms Griffen. But I should also say that Mr Hokai’s starting point of eight years’ imprisonment, given the amount that was involved here significantly outweighs Mr Hokai’s 1.9 kilograms, means the starting point could not be as low for Ms Griffen. More than that I cannot and should not say.

[5]                On 19 April 2024, Venning J allocated a sentencing date in front of Becroft J in the High Court at Auckland of 3 July 2024 at 9 am. The Judge said that that will, of course, be dependent on the outcome of the applications before me.

Discussion

[6]                Ms Griffen has been on bail for just over two years. During that time she has attended a number of rehabilitative programmes and, on the material before me, has made good progress. But the recommendation from an expert is that she needs a further 12 months to complete her rehabilitation. Hence the application for an adjournment of the sentencing.

[7]                Ms Griffen is also aware that the District Court runs a specialist Court for offenders with addictions. It is known as the Alcohol and Drug Treatment Court. I

am told that to enter that Court and be subject to its programmes, a person should be liable to a sentence of no more than about three years’ imprisonment.

[8]                Ms Hunt for Ms Griffen submits that if Ms Griffen is permitted to spend another 12 months doing rehabilitative work and is able to go to the District Court and apply to the Alcohol and Drug Treatment Court and is accepted by that Court, then her sentence might be three years or less.

[9]                An initial problem is one of jurisdiction. Ms Hunt submits that I have an inherent jurisdiction to send Ms Griffen’s case to the District Court. I am not at all sure that I do, but I do not need to decide the point.

[10]            Ms O’Connor for the Crown points out s 68A of the Criminal Procedure Act which has recently been enacted to permit the High Court in certain circumstances to remit to the District Court cases that were originally brought to the High Court pursuant to the protocol procedures. As Ms O’Connor points out, there is an argument that legislative intervention of that sort extinguishes the particular inherent jurisdiction. Also as Ms O’Connor points out, the grounds for sending a case back to the District Court do not encompass the present circumstances. But, as I say, I need not resolve that point.

[11]            The reason I say that is that I have a clear view that Ms Griffen’s case must stay in the High Court.

[12]            Ms Griffen has been subject to these charges in this Court for a considerable period.  Justice  Becroft  conducted  a  disputed  facts  hearing  which  related  to   Ms Griffen’s participation in the offending. He has reached his views as to her part in the offending and has given a judgment outlining that participation, and giving what amounts to a sentence indication. It would be entirely wrong to send the case now to the District Court and have the District Court commence its own assessment of those factors.

[13]            There is another point as well. Ms Hunt’s underlying rationale for her applications is that the sentencing purpose of promoting rehabilitation outweighs all

others. In some circumstances it can be the predominant factor. But where there is large scale commercial importation of methamphetamine by an organised criminal group then other purposes, such as deterrence and denunciation, are to be emphasised. There is also the principle that justice should be done as soon as reasonably possible. In this case that will be on 3 July 2024. All of the mitigating factors that Ms Hunt has advanced can be made to the sentencing Judge at that time.

[14]            It is not for me to say anything that might influence the sentencing Judge. But I accept Ms O’Connor’s submission that finding discounts of such a magnitude that an end sentence of three years or less will be imposed is problematic.

Decision

[15]The applications are dismissed.

Brewer J