Rangitaawa v Police - [2013] NZHC 1141

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2013-419-000016 [2013] NZHC 1141

CATRINA MECHELLE RANGITAAWA
Appellant
v
NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent

Hearing: 16 May 2013

Counsel: R O Nicholson for Appellant
R B Annandale for Respondent

Judgment: 16 May 2013

ORAL JUDGMENT OF KATZ J

Counsel:
R B Annandale, Almao Douch, Crown Solicitor, Hamilton
R O Nicholson, Barrister, Hamilton

RANGITAAWA V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC HAM CRI-2013-419-000016 [16 May 2013]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Catrina Rangitaawa, pleaded guilty in the District Court to one count of possessing cannabis for the purposes of sale/supply, which is an offence under s 6(1)(f) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

[2] On 5 April 2013, Ms Rangitaawa was sentenced to 10 months imprisonment. She appeals that sentence on the grounds that:

(a) it is manifestly excessive; and

(b) the Judge erred in not granting her home detention.

I will consider each ground of appeal in turn, after briefly setting out the key facts.

Facts

[3] Ms Rangitaawa is a 46 year old single mother. At the time of sentencing she was living in a Housing Corporation home with her uncle and four of her five children, aged 11, 12, 17, and 19. She receives an invalid’s benefit, as she is partially blind (having only 20% vision).

[4] On 9 November 2012, the police attended Ms Rangitaawa’s address on an unrelated matter. They found Ms Rangitaawa in possession of a bag of cannabis. A search was conducted, revealing a snaplock bag containing 15.36 grams of cannabis, two cannabis tinnies, $170 cash located in a money container in the lounge and snaplock bags which contained cannabis residue.

[5] Ms Rangitaawa says she offended because she needed money as she could not afford to pay her bills. There was some dispute as to whether some of these bills related to what could be described as “luxury” items such as Sky TV or an internet connection. However, nothing turns on the issue. A friend suggested that she could deal cannabis as a means of supplementing her income and she did so.

[6] Ms Rangitaawa’s only previous conviction is for cannabis cultivation, some

16 years ago, in 1996.

Is the sentence manifestly excessive?

[7] The first ground of appeal is that the sentence is manifestly excessive. In an appeal against sentence, the Court may confirm the sentence; or if the sentence is one which is “clearly excessive or inadequate or inappropriate”, or the Court had no jurisdiction to impose that sentence, or substantial facts relating to personal history were not before the sentencing Court, then the Court may quash or vary the sentence or part of it.1

[8] In R v Monkman, the Court of Appeal considered the factors that would make

a sentence “manifestly excessive.”2

Whether a sentence can be said to be manifestly excessive turns on the maximum sentence prescribed by law for the offence; the level of sentencing customarily observed with respect to that offence; the place which the conduct in question assumes…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rangitaawa v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NZHC 1141
Decision Date: 16 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by Catrina Rangitaawa against her 10-month imprisonment sentence for possessing cannabis for sale/supply was heard in the High Court of New Zealand. Rangitaawa argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the District Court Judge erred by not granting her home detention instead. The court considered the appropriateness of the starting point for sentencing, which was at the bottom end of band 2 in R v Terewi. The court also examined whether home detention would have been the appropriate sentence, taking into account the pre-sentence report which highlighted concerns about Rangitaawa's drug use and potential risk to her children.

The court concluded that the starting point of two years imprisonment was appropriate for Rangitaawa's small-scale commercial cannabis supply operation. The court also found that the Judge did not err in refusing to grant home detention, as the pre-sentence report indicated concerns about the safety and welfare of Rangitaawa's children if she were to be sentenced to home detention. However, the High Court found that the Judge gave undue weight to these concerns, and that the concerns attributed to Child, Youth and Family Services (CYFS) in the pre-sentence report were not determinative in the sentencing process.

The court quashed the sentence of 10 months imprisonment and substituted a sentence of 6 months home detention, taking into account the period of imprisonment already served. The court emphasised that sentencing should not be used as a mechanism to address underlying child welfare issues, and that these issues should be addressed through separate statutory processes.

Orders