R v Hawes HC Tau CRI 2009-069-001530
[2009] NZHC 2407
•20 November 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
TAURANGA REGISTRY HEARD AT ROTORUA
CRI-2009-069-001530
THE QUEEN
v
HOWARD SCOTT HAWES
Charge: Possession of cannabis for supply
Plea: Guilty
Appearances: H J Derrick for Crown
P G Mabey QC for Prisoner
Sentenced: 20 November 2009
Two years six months’ imprisonment
SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J
Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Tauranga
Copy to: P G Mabey QC, Tauranga
R V HAWES HC TAU CRI-2009-069-001530 20 November 2009
[1] Howard Scott Hawes you are for sentence, having pleaded guilty to a charge
of possession of cannabis for sale. The maximum penalty for that is eight years’ imprisonment. You are here for sentence in this Court, in the High Court, because the District Court declined jurisdiction.
[2] The facts appear from the summary to which you have pleaded guilty. On 23
April 2009 the police following up an investigation went to a relatively remote area
in the Kaingaroa Forest. There they located you and others at a site, which had obviously been prepared for the purpose of drying and processing cannabis plants. When you were located there you had garden secateurs in your pocket. Your fingertips were stained green from handling the cannabis. You declined to make a formal statement but admitted the cannabis was yours. You said you had travelled to the area the week before to harvest and hang the cannabis to dry. The cannabis has been examined by an expert and has been classed as good quality. A substantial amount of cannabis was found at the site as you know. Eight and a half kilograms of partially manicured cannabis head was recovered from the scene and allowing a further reduction of about 25 percent for final manicuring would result in a harvest of approximately six kilograms of saleable cannabis head. Twenty-one kilograms of unmanicured cannabis was also found at the scene and allowing 50 percent reduction in weight to complete its preparation for sale would result in a harvest of approximately 10 kilograms for sale. So between about 16 and 17 kilograms of cannabis head would have been obtained from the crop that you were harvesting.
[3] Using those quantities and the prices that are known to be achievable for the sale of cannabis, the cannabis that you were found in possession of could have sold, depending on how it was sold, ultimately for between about $110,000 and $130,000.
[4] You are co-operative when spoken to the police and as counsel has noted you pleaded guilty at a relatively early stage. Mr Hawes, at the age of 48 you are before the Court for sentence for the first time. You live with your partner and her daughter and you have two sons yourself. You are a local in that you have resided in the Te Puke area since you were 18. You have always been employed in the building
industry until last November when you suffered a back injury. I have seen the reference from an employer.
[5] Apparently you have been using cannabis since the age of 18 and accept that you were using cannabis heavily prior to your apprehension in relation to this offending. A self reported test used to measure alcohol and drug use indicated a harmful pattern of drug use.
[6] There is a reference in the pre-sentence report to you saying that you didn’t intend to gain from the cannabis and that it was grown for personal use. Your counsel has realistically suggested that I should put that to one side. It is inconsistent with your plea and frankly it is simply an unrealistic statement to have made in relation to the quantity of cannabis that was found.
[7] You have shown some insight I accept into your offending. You have told the probation officer writing the pre-sentence report this was the stupidest thing you have ever done. Undoubtedly you did it because of your addiction to cannabis and because of your involvement in the use of that drug yourself.
[8] You have expressed desire to participate in drug rehabilitation programmes and I have seen the letter from the Hamner Clinic that confirms you approached that agency yourself.
[9] From the letters that have been written in your support Mr Hawes and from what I have gleaned from reading this file, you are not an unintelligent man. You know why you are here now and you appreciate and understand now the seriousness of what you were involved in I am sure. I have no doubt you regret what you have become involved in. You have to be dealt with by this Court for your offending. You will appreciate now that your offending, arising out of this drug, affects you but also it affects those that you love and your families. There has been a very sensitive and sensible letter written in your support by your partner. You are very fortunate to have had her support and that you still have that support.
[10] In sentencing you, however, Mr Hawes I have to take into account the principles and purposes of the Sentencing Act. The relevant purposes are:
· to hold you accountable for the harm done to the community by drug supply. You have seen personally now and understand the effect that this drug can have on you and it has obviously impacted on others in the community and it is only available in the community because it is available for sale through people like you;
· to promote in you responsibility for and acknowledgement of that harm;
· to denounce the conduct that you were involved in, which is having cannabis for sale; and
· to deter you but also others from committing similar offending.
[11] I am also required to take into account the principles in the Act. In this case they include:
· the seriousness of the offence, which is reflected in the maximum sentence I refer to;
· the seriousness of your offending in these circumstances, in other words the quantity that you were found with;
· the need to be consistent with other sentences of this Court and the Court
of Appeal; and
· balanced against that I am directed to impose the least restrictive outcome appropriate.
[12] As counsel have acknowledged in their submissions the leading authority is the Court of Appeal decision of R v Terewi (1999) 16 CRNZ 429 (CA). Given the amount of cannabis you were found with and the value of it, your offending falls into the bottom of category 3 identified by the Court in that case. Both the Crown and
your counsel agree that the appropriate start point must be four years and I am prepared to accept that in this case.
[13] Mr Hawes there are no personal aggravating factors in your case. I turn to mitigating factors that I can take into account in your favour. You are entitled to credit for your clean record. It is frankly a real shame that at the age of 48 you are here in this Court to be dealt with today.
[14] You have in the past contributed to the community through your work and through the fact you have not caused a problem or been before the Court before. You are to get credit for that. I also take into account that your willingness to address your problem is genuine. For those factors I give you a credit of six months.
[15] The major factor in your favour is your guilty plea. It was not entered at the earliest occasion as that is referred to in the authorities but I accept, as Mr Mabey has submitted, it was entered at a relatively early stage. In light of the Court of Appeal decision in R v Hessell [2009] NZCA 450 a further discount approaching 30 percent is appropriate.
[16] Mr Hawes please stand. On the charge of possession of cannabis for sale you are sentenced to imprisonment for two years six months. Mr Hawes you must serve this sentence obviously but there is no reason for you to be back before this Court ever again. Stand down.
Venning J
0