R v Turner - [2012] NZHC 1897

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI-2011-054-2891 [2012] NZHC 1897

QUEEN

v

JAMIE ALAN TURNER

Hearing: 31 July 2012

Counsel: A Read for Crown
R Bedford for Prisoner

Sentencing: 31 July 2012

SENTENCING NOTES OF MILLER J

[1] Mr Turner, you appear for sentence on two charges, one of cultivating cannabis and the other of possessing it for supply. The charges were laid summarily and the District Court has declined jurisdiction.

[2] The summary of facts records that on 26 August 2011 the police executed a search warrant at the home you shared with your partner. There they found a substantial cannabis growing operation. One bedroom had been fitted out as a growing room, lined with plastic, ducted for ventilation, and equipped with heaters and fans. In that room were found six growing plants and 96 small pots containing potting mix and stumps of cannabis plants. That indicates that plants had been grown from cuttings and transplanted to larger pots. In the second bedroom was
found a setup for growing plants in a cabinet. Sixty-three cuttings were found in the

R v TURNER HC PMN CRI-2011-054-2891 [31 July 2012]

kitchen, together with 1.5 kilograms of cannabis head. The police finally found another 400 grams of cannabis, that makes a little less than two kilograms in all.

[3] Electronic scales were present but none of the other usual paraphernalia of a dealer, such as tick lists or cash, were found.

[4] You account for the offending by saying that you were addicted to cannabis, which you and your partner smoked in substantial quantities. You also claim that you were depressed after the death of a close friend. I am prepared to accept that you did consume a good deal of your own product, but you must be taken to admit the facts essential to the plea of guilty, namely that you had the cannabis for supply. In any event the quantity of cannabis and scale of the operation were such that I could not possibly accept that you were growing for personal use. The scales too are a strong pointer towards commercial purpose.

[5] The pre-sentence report records that you are 28 and you were living with your partner of ten years. As a couple you have two children who live with other family members.

[6] You pleaded guilty as long ago as 21 September 2011 and were remanded for sentence in the District Court on 18 November. You did not appear in Court on that day, having panicked when you learned that the Crown had invited the District Court to decline jurisdiction. You appear to have gone bush in order to evade sentence. You were eventually found and arrested on 4 June 2012.

[7] Your previous convictions are significant, although only two involve drugs and those were in 2002 and 2003. You have offended regularly since 2000, and there are a significant number of convictions for breach of community-based sentences for breach of bail, and a…

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 Turner

Details

AGLC: R v Turner [2012] NZHC 1897
Case: [2012] NZHC 1897
Decision Date: 31 July 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand heard the case of R v Turner, where Jamie Alan Turner was sentenced for cultivating and possessing cannabis for supply. The District Court had declined jurisdiction, transferring the case to the High Court. Turner pleaded guilty to the charges, which involved a significant cannabis growing operation discovered during a police search of his home. The police found a well-equipped growing room, additional growing setups, and a substantial amount of cannabis, indicating a commercial operation.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing based on the nature and scale of the cannabis operation, the presence of scales, and the lack of typical dealing paraphernalia. The court also considered Turner’s criminal history, his addiction to cannabis, and his failure to comply with previous community-based sentences. The primary focus was on the necessity for deterrence and denunciation given the significant scale of the operation and Turner’s repeated noncompliance with community sentences.

The court, after considering the facts and previous comparable cases, set a starting point of two years and nine months imprisonment, reflecting the middle of Category 2 in R v Terewi. Turner’s early guilty plea earned him a 25% discount, bringing the sentence to 25 months imprisonment for each charge, to be served concurrently. The court emphasised that home detention was inappropriate given Turner’s history of noncompliance and his ongoing addiction, which posed a risk of reoffending. The final orders included a sentence of 25 months imprisonment for each charge, concurrent, and an order for the destruction of the forfeited cannabis and equipment. Turner still faced charges of breach of community work and common assault, which would be dealt with in the District Court.

Orders