Riches v Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2017-409-000094 [2017] NZHC 2035

BETWEEN

WILLIAM RONALD RICHES

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	17 August 2017
Appearances:	G P Tyrrell for the Appellant C J Bernhardt for the Respondent
Judgment:	24 August 2017

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

[1]      Is a fine the normally appropriate penalty for cultivating a small number of cannabis plants for personal use using hydroponic facilities?  That is the issue raised by this appeal.

[2]      The summary of facts described how the Police visited the appellant, Mr Riches, at his home in Christchurch.   He told the Police that someone they were asking about had come over to his place to smoke cannabis.  A warrantless search power was invoked. The summary then recorded:

Located in the garage was a grow room fitted out with lamps, heat sources and ventilation.    The garage contained 6 mature Cannabis plants approximately 1 metre in height with 2 smaller plants approximately 20 centimetres in height.

[3]      Mr Riches pleaded guilty quite promptly on a third Court appearance.   He was then remanded for a pre-sentence report and was sentenced on 12 July 2017.

RICHES v POLICE [2017] NZHC 2035 [24 August 2017]

District Court sentencing

[4]      The District Court Judge referred to the number and description of the eight plants.   He noted that  Mr Riches had told the Police the cannabis was for his personal use and said “[t]his cultivation appears to have been accepted by the prosecution as being non-commercial”.

[5]      The Judge noted Mr Riches was appearing before the Court at aged 29, for all intents and purposes as a first offender.  He referred to the submission for Mr Riches that Mr Riches knew he had let his family down and that his parents were most displeased.  The PAC report recorded that Mr Riches had expressed remorse for his actions and was disappointed that he had let his family down.

[6]      The Judge also noted the submission for Mr Riches that the offending was a category 1 offence in terms of the guidelines in R v Terewi.1     He referred to the probation officer’s opinion that there was a minimal or low risk of reoffending but also the probation officer’s opinion that Mr Riches had issues with cannabis use.

[7]      The Judge noted that community work was not recommended because Mr Riches’ employment could make completing that work difficult.  He did not consider imprisonment was required and said he was therefore “prepared to accept the recommendation of the probation officer as appropriate”.  He convicted Mr Riches and sentenced him to four months’ community detention, to be served by way of a curfew at his home from 7.00 pm to 6.00 am Monday to Sunday inclusive.  He also sentenced Mr Riches to 12 months’ supervision with a special condition that he attend and complete any recommended intervention for drug use to the satisfaction of the probation officer.  On his appeal, Mr Riches did not challenge that latter aspect of his sentence.

Principles…