R v Matthews - [2013] NZHC 119

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-090-819 [2013] NZHC 119

THE QUEEN

v

KATHLEEN MAHUE MATTHEWS

Hearing: 8 February 2013

Counsel: R Thomson for Crown
J Verry for Prisoner

Judgment: 8 February 2013

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R V KATHLEEN MAHUE MATTHEWS HC AK CRI-2012-090-819 [8 February 2013]

[1] Ms Matthews, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty in the District Court to two charges of being in possession of the Class C controlled drug cannabis for supply. Each of those charges carries a maximum sentence of eight years imprisonment. You have also pleaded guilty to two charges of being in possession of utensils in the form of methamphetamine pipes. The maximum sentence in respect of that charge is 12 months imprisonment.

[2] You have pleaded guilty to three charges of receiving. Because of the differing value of the items you dishonestly received, the maximum sentence in respect of those charges vary from between seven years imprisonment and three months imprisonment. You have also pleaded guilty to being in possession of the Class A controlled drug methamphetamine. That charge carries a maximum sentence of six months imprisonment. Finally, you have pleaded guilty to a charge of driving whilst forbidden to do so. That charge carries a maximum fine of $10,000, together with an order for disqualification at the Court’s discretion.

[3] The District Court declined jurisdiction to sentence you because of the sentencing limits imposed upon it in the jurisdiction in which you pleaded guilty. For that reason the District Court remanded you through to this Court for sentence.

The facts

[4] The charges relate to three separate incidents. The first of these occurred on

6 February 2012. On that date you were at your home address when the police arrived to execute a search warrant. When the police searched your bedroom, which was located in a converted garage, they found three plastic snaplock bags containing methamphetamine in your handbag. The snaplock bags were of a type commonly known as point bags, because they commonly contain approximately .1 of a gram of methamphetamine. In the side pouch of your handbag the police found a glass pipe consistent with the type of pipe used to smoke methamphetamine.

[5] Under your mattress the police found a plastic container that had 21 cannabis bullets in it. These had a combined weight of approximately 16 grams. Being in bullet form, they were obviously pre-packaged in a form commonly used to supply

cannabis at street level. Cannabis bullets, or tinnies, normally have a street value of

$20, so the bullets found in your possession had an estimated street value of $420.

[6] Whilst the police were at your address on this occasion you received a text message on your phone from an associate enquiring if you had cannabis available. You acknowledged to the police that you had sold that associate a bullet of cannabis the previous day for $20. When asked about why you were supplying cannabis to others, 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 Matthews

Details

AGLC: R v Matthews [2013] NZHC 119
Case: [2013] NZHC 119
Decision Date: 8 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kathleen Mahue Matthews was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand Auckland Registry for various drug-related and receiving charges, as well as for driving while forbidden. Matthews had pleaded guilty to several charges, including possession of cannabis and methamphetamine for supply, possession of utensils for smoking methamphetamine, receiving stolen property, and driving while disqualified. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence for each charge, taking into account the statutory requirements and the nature of the offences. The judge found that Matthews' criminal history and her involvement in drug-related activities marked her out as a drug dealer. The judge decided to impose a sentence of home detention for the drug-related charges and discharged Matthews for the charge of driving while disqualified. The court ordered that Matthews must reside at a specific address for the duration of the sentence of home detention and comply with various conditions, including undergoing drug testing procedures and attending alcohol and drug counselling and treatment programs.

The final orders of the court included a sentence of ten months home detention to be served concurrently for the drug-related charges and a discharge for the charge of driving while disqualified. Matthews was also subject to various conditions during her sentence of home detention, including not purchasing, possessing, or consuming alcohol and/or illicit drugs, complying with drug testing procedures, and undertaking vocational training or employment as directed by the Probation Officer. The court also made an order for the destruction of the drug-related paraphernalia found in Matthews' possession.

Orders