R v Te Ture - [2012] NZHC 1409

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI-2011-010-000412 [2012] NZHC 1409

THE QUEEN

v

MORGAN TE TURE

Hearing: 20 June 2012

Counsel: E C Killeen for Crown
R B Philip for Prisoner

Sentence: 20 June 2012

NOTES ON SENTENCING OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Mr Te Ture, you appear for sentencing today having pleaded guilty to one charge of cultivation of cannabis.[1] This charge carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.

[1] Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 9(1).

[2] You are here in the High Court for sentencing because on 16 March 2012 the District Court declined jurisdiction to sentence you because of the two years’ imprisonment limit that can be imposed by the District Court for offending of this
kind.

R V TE TURE HC PMN CRI-2011-010-000412 [20 June 2012]

Circumstances of offending

[3] On 1 November 2011, the Police executed a search warrant at your address. Both you and your son were present at your address at that time. On arrival, the police noted that a door to a room within the house and the door of an adjoining shed were secured with padlocks. You supplied keys to the police that opened both these locks.

[4] In this room and shed, the police found 301 cannabis plants of varying maturity. In the first room, the police found 26 cannabis plants that were between
400mm and 700mm in height. They also located dried cannabis material that was hanging from the ceiling, and cannabis material on a bench.

[5] In the second room, there were three one metre high cannabis plants,

75 cannabis seedlings 20 cm tall, and 197 cannabis seedlings 10cm tall.

[6] In one of the bedrooms at the address, the police found two bags of cannabis. In the lounge, they located a small bag of cannabis and spotting knives. In the kitchen, they found a bag containing cannabis material and stalks. Finally, in the laundry hot water cylinder cupboard, the police located a roll of black polythene and a container of potting mix with cannabis stalks.

[7] The cannabis plants were growing under growing lamps with irrigation supplied to the plants through soak trays. They were growing in buckets and plastic planter bags. The photographs of the facility you created show an operation that had a degree of sophistication.

[8] At the address, the police located three lighting units, two fans, six electrical transformers, 42 buckets, two timers, 20 multiplug boxes, a pair of loppers, fertiliser containers with liquid fertiliser, hormone rooting gel, hormone gel, spraying oil, a small bag of granulated fertiliser, a heat lamp, scales, a watering can and drying strings.

[9] When the police spoke to you at the address, you admitted the plants were yours. Later on you explained your growing operation to the police. You said that the room within the house was the nursery where you cloned from mother plants, and the shed contained the plants that had reached maturity. You claimed that you grew the…

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 Te Ture

Details

AGLC: R v Te Ture [2012] NZHC 1409
Case: [2012] NZHC 1409
Decision Date: 20 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Collins J presided over the sentencing of Morgan Te Ture, who had pleaded guilty to cultivating cannabis. The court had to decide the appropriate sentence considering the nature and circumstances of the offence, as well as the offender's personal circumstances. The legal issues included determining the starting point sentence for cannabis cultivation with a commercial element and whether to apply any aggravating or mitigating factors. The court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing, including holding the offender accountable, denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The court found that the offending fell within category two, which involves small-scale cultivation for commercial purposes. Although Te Ture claimed the cannabis was for personal use, the number of plants and the presence of electronic scales indicated a commercial element. The court adopted a starting point of three years’ imprisonment, taking into account the modest sophistication of the operation and the potential yield. The court also considered Te Ture's previous convictions and his guilty plea, which resulted in a 25% discount. Ultimately, Te Ture was sentenced to two years and three months’ imprisonment, and an order was made for the destruction of the cannabis, fertiliser, and growing equipment found during the search.

Orders