R v Johnson - [2013] NZHC 64

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CRI 2012-020-1060 [2013] NZHC 64

QUEEN

v

DARREN ROBERT JOHNSON

Hearing: 5 February 2013

Counsel: J D Lucas for Crown
A Malik for Prisoner

Sentence: 5 February 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF THE HON JUSTICE KÓS

Introduction

[1] Mr Johnson, given the discussion that has preceded I will start this sentencing by saying that the ultimate sentence of this Court will be a sentence of home detention. So I am not going to leave you up in the air on that issue. You know what the position is. I will now sentence you formally.

[2] You appear for sentence today on one charge laid indictably of cultivation of cannabis.1 You face other summary charges to be dealt with in the District Court at
another time.

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 9(1).

R v JOHNSON HC NAP CRI 2012-020-1060 [5 February 2013]

[3] I am sentencing you today because the District Court declined jurisdiction to sentence you on the indictably laid charge.

Details of offending

[4] I will briefly summarise your offending.

[5] The police had been investigating you and your associates, Mr Lee, Mr Arkell and Mr Stewart, since March 2011. They believed that you were all part of a group who were cultivating cannabis. Between 4 February and 23 April 2012 you accompanied Mr Lee or Mr Arkell to Mitre 10 Mega store on five occasions and purchased items consistent with the cultivation of cannabis.

Cultivation at Middle Road

[6] On 16 May 2012 search warrants were executed at your address and at the addresses of your associates. A large cultivation operation was found at Mr Lee’s address in Middle Road, Havelock North – a rural property.

[7] This offending involved the cultivation of 853 plants in three separate rooms:

[8] According to the agreed summary of facts, cannabis harvested from a single mature plant can be sold conservatively for $1,000. So theoretically the owners of these cannabis plants could have earned over $850,000 from this operation. Having plants at three different stages of development which was the scenario here ensured a continuous supply of cannabis.

[9] The assistance that you provided to your associates in carrying on this operation gave rise to the indictably laid charge of cannabis cultivation in relation to the Middle Road property. Your associates have also been charged with cultivation of cannabis and they are still awaiting trial in the District Court.

[10] It is accepted by both counsel that you had a lesser role in that operation than your associates and that your sentence should reflect that.

Personal circumstances and pre-sentence report

[11] Turning now to your personal circumstances, you are 48 years old and you live in Napier. You have 24 previous convictions. Most are minor offending. You have not served any term of imprisonment before. Most relevantly for the purposes of your sentencing today, you have two previous convictions for cannabis cultivation in 1987 and 1997. You received a fine and…

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 Johnson

Details

AGLC: R v Johnson [2013] NZHC 64
Case: [2013] NZHC 64
Decision Date: 5 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Johnson concerns the sentencing of Mr. Darren Robert Johnson, who was convicted of cultivating cannabis. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Napier Registry. Mr. Johnson was part of a group cultivating cannabis at a property in Middle Road, Havelock North, which involved 853 plants. The police had been investigating Mr. Johnson and his associates since March 2011, and warrants were executed at their addresses on 16 May 2012.

The legal issues in this case revolved around determining an appropriate starting point for Mr. Johnson's sentence, considering his level of involvement in the cannabis cultivation operation, and deciding on the most suitable form of sentence that would meet the purposes of sentencing while also providing Mr. Johnson with an opportunity for rehabilitation.

The court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002. The court acknowledged the need to hold Mr. Johnson accountable for his actions, denounce his conduct, deter him and others from committing similar offences, and assist in his rehabilitation. The court also considered the gravity of the offending, the seriousness of the types of offences committed, and the desirability and consistency with appropriate sentences available. The court ultimately decided to impose a sentence of home detention for 12 months, given Mr. Johnson's age, willingness to address his cannabis use, and lack of previous imprisonment or home detention sentences.

In summary, the court sentenced Mr. Darren Robert Johnson to home detention for 12 months, to be served at 34 Clarence Cox Avenue, Pirimi, Napier. The sentence includes various conditions such as abstaining from alcohol and illicit drugs, attending and completing assessments for drug and alcohol counselling and a short motivational programme, and abiding by any electronic monitoring as directed by his probation officer.

Orders