R v Sauer - [2012] NZHC 3262

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI 2012-088-2763 [2012] NZHC 3262

THE QUEEN

v

STEVEN STANLEY SAUER

Hearing: 4 December 2012

Counsel: A Patterson for Crown
C Muston for Prisoner

Judgment: 4 December 2012

SENTENCING NOTES OF HEATH J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, PO Box 146, Whangarei
Counsel:
C Muston, PO Box 1905, Whangarei

R V SAUER HC WHA CRI 2012-088-2763 [4 December 2012]

Introduction

[1] Steven Stanley Sauer, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to

10 charges of offering to supply the Class C controlled drug cannabis and one of possessing cannabis for sale. Those guilty pleas were entered in the District Court. Jurisdiction was declined.[1] That means you are here for sentence today because a wider range of sentencing options are available to this Court.

Facts

[1] R v McLeod [1998] 2 NZLR 65 (CA).

[2] Your offending was detected through the analysis of cellphone data obtained on a search warrant from Vodafone. It revealed a number of text messages that were exchanged between yourself and others concerning the offering of cannabis for sale. The possession for supply charge arises out of cannabis found in your possession when the Police executed a search warrant at your home on 10 August 2012 at the conclusion of their investigations.

[3] I do not propose to go through the facts in detail. It is sufficient to say that the offending occurred over a period of about three months. In broad terms the amount of cannabis alleged to be involved has a street value of about $3000. However, only $140 was located when your property was searched at the conclusion of the Police investigation.

[4] That is a relatively significant factor. You told the probation officer who prepared the pre-sentence report that you had been using cannabis frequently; indeed, every two hours for self-medication. You told the probation officer that you began to sell drugs this year to feed that habit.

[5] To your credit you have attended the Salvation Army Bridge programme. I

have looked at the certificate of attendance which tells me that you have completed a

12 week programme; phase one of which was eight weeks of intensive days and

phase two, an aftercare programme of four weeks. During the intensive day programme you received one-on-one counselling on a regular basis.

Analysis

[6] My first task is to assess the nature of the operation. There is no evidence of any person going to your home to collect cannabis. Nevertheless, it is clear that a number of offers were made by text to supply. The most concerning is the offer to supply one pound of cannabis, a significant quantity.

[7] The text messaging suggests that you had the ability to procure amounts of cannabis at a reasonably high level. Nevertheless, the operation was relatively small and I need to temper my assessment by reference to the regularity with which you were using cannabis for your personal situation.

[8] There is a range of between…

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 Sauer

Details

AGLC: R v Sauer [2012] NZHC 3262
Case: [2012] NZHC 3262
Decision Date: 4 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sauer involved Steven Stanley Sauer, who appeared for sentencing after pleading guilty to multiple charges of offering to supply cannabis and one charge of possessing cannabis for sale. The District Court had declined jurisdiction, which led to the case being heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Whangarei Registry. The sentencing hearing took place on 4 December 2012, with A Patterson representing the Crown and C Muston representing the prisoner. The primary legal issues for the court were to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant's drug-related offences and to consider whether home detention or another form of punishment would be more suitable.

The court assessed the nature and scale of the defendant's drug supply operation, noting that while there was no evidence of customers visiting his home, numerous text messages indicated offers to supply cannabis. The court acknowledged the defendant's extensive personal use of cannabis and his decision to attend a rehabilitation programme, the Salvation Army Bridge programme, which included intensive counselling. Despite the relatively small scale of the operation, the court fixed a starting point of two years and six months imprisonment, considering the defendant's prior convictions and mitigating factors such as his rehabilitation efforts. The court allowed a credit of two months for mitigating factors and 25% for the defendant's early guilty pleas, resulting in a revised starting point of two years and four months. Ultimately, the court decided to impose a sentence of nine months home detention and 200 hours of community work, along with special conditions that included mandatory participation in rehabilitation programmes and a prohibition on alcohol and illicit substances.

The final orders included a sentence of nine months home detention and 200 hours of community work, with specific conditions attached to the home detention term. These conditions mandated the defendant's participation in rehabilitation programmes and prohibited him from purchasing, possessing, or consuming alcohol or illicit substances. The court emphasized that this sentence was a chance for the defendant to reform and avoid a prison term, urging him to make the most of this opportunity.

Orders