R v Moore - [2013] NZHC 1427

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2013-088-467 [2013] NZHC 1427

THE QUEEN

v

STEPHEN MOORE

Hearing: 14 June 2013

Appearances: M B Smith for Crown
S K Ellis for Prisoner

Sentence: 14 June 2013

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v STEPHEN MOORE [2013] NZHC 1427 [14 June 2013]

[1] Mr Moore, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty in the District Court to charges of cultivating cannabis, being in possession of cannabis for sale, being in unlawful possession of a pistol and unlawful possession of ammunition.

[2] The maximum sentence on the cultivation charge is seven years imprisonment, whilst that on the charge of being in possession of cannabis for sale is eight years imprisonment. The maximum sentence on the charge of being in unlawful possession of a pistol is three years imprisonment, whilst that for the charge of unlawful possession of ammunition is four years imprisonment.

Background

[3] All of the charges arise out of a search that the police carried out of your home address on 9 February 2013. When the police searched the address, they found two indoor cannabis growing operations under your rented accommodation. The police found that you had established a tent with insulated walls and grow lights. A total of 17 cannabis plants approximately 1.5 metres tall were located in this area. All of those plants were healthy, and in the early stages of budding.

[4] The police also found a number of used black polythene bags in the area. This indicates that there may have been previous harvests of cannabis. In addition, they found containers of plant food, insecticides and fertiliser.

[5] When the police searched the kitchen, they found a container with ten grams of cannabis plant inside. Earlier, the police had found three plastic bags containing a total of 1.3 kilograms of dried cannabis in the area of the growing operation. The quantity of cannabis that the police found in the kitchen was near a quantity of new and unused small clear plastic snaplock bags. These are commonly used to package quantities of cannabis for sale.

[6] When the police searched the rest of your address, they found a sawn-off shotgun in your wardrobe. This was inoperable because the hammers and springs were missing. Also located in the wardrobe were 20 rounds of live shotgun ammunition and 12 live rounds of .22 calibre ammunition.

[7] You freely admitted that you had grown the cannabis, and that the dried cannabis that the police found at your home address was yours. You also admitted possession of the sawn-off shotgun and ammunition.

Sentencing Act 2002

[8] As I am sure you now know, the sentence virtually invariably imposed when offenders appear on drug dealing or cultivation charges having any commercial element is one of imprisonment. That is really the only way the Court can effectively deter and denounce this type of offending. The most important aspect of any sentencing in this area is to ensure that the starting point…

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 Moore

Details

AGLC: R v Moore [2013] NZHC 1427
Case: [2013] NZHC 1427
Decision Date: 14 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Moore was heard on 14 June 2013, where the defendant, Stephen Moore, was sentenced for multiple charges including cultivating cannabis, possessing cannabis for sale, and possessing a firearm and ammunition. The legal issues the court had to address were primarily concerned with determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, taking into account both the nature and extent of Moore's criminal activities and his personal circumstances. The court considered the guidelines set by the Court of Appeal in R v Terewi, which suggested a starting point of two to four years imprisonment for moderate cannabis cultivation with a commercial element. The court found Moore's operation to be moderately sophisticated and set a starting point of two years and three months for the cannabis charges. Given the presence of the firearm and ammunition, the court increased this starting point by six months, resulting in a total starting point of two years and nine months before considering aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court acknowledged Moore's extensive history of cannabis and firearms-related offenses, which necessitated an additional uplift of four months to the starting point, bringing the total to three years and one month. Mitigating factors, such as Moore's age and his efforts to wean himself off cannabis, were considered, leading to a discount of ten months due to his early guilty plea. The final sentence imposed was two years and three months imprisonment for the cannabis charges, to run concurrently, and six months imprisonment for the firearm and ammunition charges, also to run concurrently. The court emphasized the importance of Moore's rehabilitation and participation in drug rehabilitation programs during his incarceration to prevent recidivism.

Orders