R v Kingi - [2012] NZHC 3473

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI 2012-019-002042 [2012] NZHC 3473

THE QUEEN

v

MICHELLE DEBORAH KINGI

Hearing: 17 December 2012

Counsel: J M O'Sullivan for the Crown
M Young for the Prisoner

Judgment: 17 December 2012

SENTENCING NOTES OF WYLIE J

R V KINGI HC HAM CRI 2012-019-002042 [17 December 2012]

[1] Ms Kingi, let me say at the outset that I intend to sentence you to a sentence of home detention.

[2] You may remain seated until I ask you to stand.

[3] Ms Kingi, you appear for sentence today, having pleaded guilty to one charge of possession of cannabis for supply. This is an offence pursuant to s 6(1)(f) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The maximum penalty is one of eight years’ imprisonment.

[4] The District Court at Hamilton has declined to sentence you, and has transferred you to this Court for sentence.

Relevant Facts

[5] At approximately 7.30 am on 21 March 2012, the police executed a search warrant at your address in Ngaruawahia.

[6] There were two units on the property. The police located 12 cannabis tinnies in a plastic Snaplock bag, containing in total approximately 11 grams of cannabis on an associate, who lived in one of the units on the property.

[7] They found a small plastic bag containing $1,000 in cash in your locked bedroom wardrobe. In your kitchen, located in a cupboard above the sink, was a set of digital kitchen scales, containing remnants of cannabis and a Magic Bullet Grinder that had a strong smell of cannabis. In a cupboard under the sink were nine empty Snaplock bags, which contained remnants of cannabis. In an adjoining garage, police found a brown canvas bag, containing an army ammunition box. Inside the ammunition box were 21 Snaplock bags, each containing approximately one ounce of cannabis plant material. In total, approximately 590 grams of cannabis plant material was found. When the police spoke to you, you could not provide an explanation for the items found, but did acknowledge that everything found belonged to you.

[8] You are a 47-year old female. You have six adult children and seven grandchildren. You reside with your partner and father-in-law. You rely on your daughter as your main support person, due to poor health. You suffer from emphysema and you are regularly hospitalised due to your inability to breathe properly from time to time. This limits what you can physically do, as over-exertion can exacerbate your condition.

[9] You stated that you have used cannabis yourself, and that you smoked up to

30 grams per day for a considerable number of years. However, you have recently completed an alcohol and drug residential programme run by the Salvation Army. You have now been sober for some time, and you are trying to stay that way. You are not using drugs, and you continue to attend counselling with the Salvation Army.

[10] You are assessed as presenting a low risk of reoffending while you…

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 Kingi

Details

AGLC: R v Kingi [2012] NZHC 3473
Case: [2012] NZHC 3473
Decision Date: 17 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Michelle Deborah Kingi was convicted of possession of cannabis for supply under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The High Court of New Zealand, Hamilton Registry, was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for Kingi. The primary legal issue was the nature and severity of the offence, considering Kingi's background, health, and efforts towards rehabilitation. The court had to balance the principles of accountability, deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation in its sentencing.

The court commenced by noting the seriousness of the offence, considering the quantity and packaging of the cannabis found, which indicated a commercial intent. It established a starting point of two years and three months' imprisonment, acknowledging the commercial scale of the operation. However, mitigating factors such as Kingi's early guilty plea, her efforts in rehabilitation, and her health conditions were considered. The court deemed her health condition, emphysema, significant enough to warrant a departure from a custodial sentence, leading to the imposition of a home detention sentence. The court concluded that home detention was the least restrictive option suitable for the offence and the offender’s circumstances.

Kingi was sentenced to nine months' home detention, with specific conditions including electronic monitoring, abstention from drugs and alcohol, and participation in appropriate interventions. The court also ordered the destruction of the drug-related items found and the forfeiture of the $1,000 in cash to the Crown. The decision was aimed at balancing the need for punishment and deterrence with the offender's health and rehabilitation efforts.

Orders