R v Peters CA12/03 - [2003] NZCA 364

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA12/03

THE QUEEN

v

NINA DOVINE PETERS

Coram: Keith J
Blanchard J Anderson J

Counsel:H E Juran for Appellant G C de Graaff for Crown

Judgment (on the papers): 14 May 2003

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY ANDERSON J

[1] This appeal against a sentence of three and a half years imprisonment imposed for drug offences has been heard on the papers under the Crimes (Criminal Appeals) Amendment Act 2001. The relevant materials, including written xsubmissions which have been received in accordance with R29 of the Court of Appeal (Criminal) Rules 2001, have been considered by the members of the Court who have conferred and agreed upon this judgment.

The offences

[2] The appellant was committed for trial in the District Court at Manukau on an indictment alleging a number of offences relating to the Class B controlled drug

R V NINA DOVINE PETERS CA CA12/03 [14 May 2003]

methamphetamine. She, along with two co-offenders, pleaded guilty on the morning of trial to four counts of supplying methamphetamine and one count of offering to supply that drug. No evidence was offered on the remaining counts in the indictment relating to the appellant and she was discharged in respect of them pursuant to s347 of the Crimes Act. How proximately to trial the appellant indicated a willingness to plead is not stated but it is plain that the plea was far from early. As such, it warranted only a limited discount.

[3] The agreed statement of facts showed that on 14 September 2001 the appellant offered to supply methamphetamine to an undercover police officer and that between 23 October and 5 December, a period of only about six weeks, she in fact supplied methamphetamine four times to that police officer. Twice the drug was in its potent crystalline form and on the other two occasions was pure powder. On the four occasions the drug was sold for, respectively, $2,000, $1,900, $2,000,
$1,000, a total of $6,900. Once, however, the appellant acted only as an intermediary and received $100 commission. On another occasion, the police officer still being present, a third person bought from the appellant a snap-lock bag containing powder for a purchase price of $100. There were other indications that the sales to the undercover police officer were not the appellant’s only involvement with the drug.

Sentencing information

[4] The District Court Judge had before him information showing that at the time of the offending the appellant was aged 24 years and had been living with the father of her child for some years and that the relationship had become unstable, isolating and abusive. Within a few months of arrest the appellant left that partner and moved to another district where she formed a relationship with another man. Her upbringing had involved her being cared for by grandparents, both of whom died before she was 15. She left school without qualifications and was a mother at 16.

[5] The appellant’s previous…

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 Peters CA12/03

Details

AGLC: R v Peters CA12/03 [2003] NZCA 364
Case: [2003] NZCA 364
Decision Date: 14 May 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal against a sentence of three and a half years imprisonment imposed for drug offences on the papers under the Crimes (Criminal Appeals) Amendment Act 2001. The appellant, Nina Dovine Peters, had pleaded guilty to four counts of supplying methamphetamine and one count of offering to supply that drug. The Crown argued that the appellant was part of an organised methamphetamine operation involving repetitive offending, planning, and premeditation, and that the drugs were of significant value and quantity. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that she was a middle person in the operation, and she relied on several authorities to support her argument. The Court of Appeal found that the starting point of five years imprisonment was unacceptably high and that the discount of one and a half years was generous. The appellant's commendable steps to rehabilitate herself after breaking away from the abusive relationship she was in were recognized in the result.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate or inappropriate, and whether the starting point of five years imprisonment was appropriate. The Court of Appeal found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the starting point was unacceptably high. The Court of Appeal emphasized that the issue of whether a sentence is manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate or inappropriate must be examined in terms of the sentence actually passed rather than the precise process by which it is reached. The Court of Appeal also noted that the appellant's personal circumstances, although warranting sympathetic appreciation, cannot legally carry much weight. The Court of Appeal found that the appellant's commendable steps to rehabilitate herself after breaking away from the abusive relationship she was in were recognized in the result.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed by the District Court was stern but not one which could properly be reviewed for manifest excess. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The Court of Appeal found that the starting point of five years imprisonment was unacceptably high and that the discount of one and a half years was generous. The Court of Appeal emphasized that the issue of whether a sentence is manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate or inappropriate must be examined in terms of the sentence actually passed rather than the precise process by which it is reached. The Court of Appeal also noted that the appellant's personal circumstances, although warranting sympathetic appreciation, cannot legally carry much weight. The Court of Appeal found that the appellant's commendable steps to rehabilitate herself after breaking away from the abusive relationship she was in were recognized in the result.

Orders