R v Walters - [2012] NZHC 1750

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-092-000882 [2012] NZHC 1750

THE QUEEN

v

MATHEW NEIHANA WALTERS

Hearing: 17 July 2012

Counsel: M R Walker for the Crown
S W Walker for the Prisoner

Judgment: 17 July 2012

SENTENCING NOTES OF RODNEY HANSEN J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell P O Box 2213 Shortland Street Auckland 1140 (DX CP24063) for the
Crown
Ministry of Justice (Public Defence Service) P O Box 76715 Manukau City Manukau
2241 for the Prisoner

R V MATHEW NEIHANA WALTERS HC AK CRI-2012-092-000882 [17 July 2012]

Introduction

[1] Mr Walters, you appear for sentence, having pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of cannabis for supply, and one charge of failing to appear at the Manukau District Court.

[2] Judge Treston in the Manukau District Court declined jurisdiction to sentence you, and you were remanded to this Court.

[3] When you came before Toogood J on 1 June 2012, he adjourned sentencing so that further enquiries could be made as to the availability of a community-based sentence. For that purpose, as you know, I have been provided with a report as to the suitability of your home for a sentence of home detention. Before I talk about that, I just need to outline the factual basis on which you will be sentenced.

Facts

[4] In the early hours of the morning on 1 December 2011, the Police were called to your home at Manukau to investigate a burglary. Three intruders were found inside the house and were removed. During their search of the house, the Police found that the garage had been set up to cultivate and harvest cannabis. It was lined with polythene; the window was blacked out; there was an extractor fan and two large heat pumps, as well as other apparatus and materials for the cultivation of cannabis.

[5] The Police found cannabis plants drying on a rack suspended from the roof. There were 180 stalks, or buds of cannabis, ranging from 150 to 400 millimetres in length and weighing, in total, 477 grams. There was also a large quantity of cannabis leaf in bags. It is accepted by the Crown that the cannabis was in the drying phase and that the dried weight was likely to be considerably less. For sentencing purposes, I proceed on the basis of your own estimate that there were seven or eight ounces of cannabis, or 210 to 240 grams that would have been available for sale. I am told that when interviewed, you thought there was about

$2,000 worth of cannabis at the house. You said that you intended to sell some of it for $300 for a 30 gram bag.

Personal background

[6] You are a 34 year old man, who, I am told, resides with your partner and your two children in a Housing New Zealand property. You have been on the unemployment benefit, although it has been confirmed to me today that you have had a job offer, which continues to be…

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 Walters

Details

AGLC: R v Walters [2012] NZHC 1750
Case: [2012] NZHC 1750
Decision Date: 17 July 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, heard the case of the Queen against Mathew Neihana Walters. Walters was facing sentencing for a charge of possession of cannabis for supply and failing to appear at the Manukau District Court. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for Walters, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as his personal background and history of offending. The primary legal issue was to determine the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering the level of commerciality involved in the cannabis possession and the absence of actual sales. The court had to balance the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation in imposing a sentence. After considering the arguments from both counsel, the court determined that a starting point of two years and three months would be appropriate. The court accepted the defence counsel's argument that the starting point should not exceed two years, given the absence of actual sales and the modest quantity and potential value of the cannabis. The court also considered mitigating factors such as Walters' early guilty plea and his motivation for rehabilitation. The court decided that a combination of intensive supervision and community work would be the most appropriate sentence, as it would provide Walters with the opportunity to address his substance abuse issues and prevent future offending. The court imposed a sentence of 18 months' intensive supervision and 200 hours of community work, subject to specific conditions related to drug and alcohol abstinence and treatment. The court also discharged Walters without penalty for the charge of failing to appear at the Manukau District Court.

Orders