Riddell v Police - [2012] NZHC 2826

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI 2012-463-57 [2012] NZHC 2826

BETWEEN JENNA ELLEN RIDDELL Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 25 October 2012

Counsel: M McGhie for Appellant
J Rhodes for Respondent

Judgment: 25 October 2012

JUDGMENT OF KEANE J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Tauranga
M McGhie, Tauranga

JENNA ELLEN RIDDELL V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC ROT CRI 2012-463-57 [25 October 2012]

[1] On 26 September 2012 Jenna Riddell was sentenced in the District Court, Whakatane, to home detention for six months and 200 hours community work for a single offence: possession on 6 August 2012 of four cannabis tinnies containing 5.5 grams of cannabis head for the purpose of sale or supply. She appeals her sentence as manifestly excessive.

[2] Ms Riddell first contends that in taking a 12 month starting point for her offence, the maximum sentence able to be imposed within the summary jurisdiction, the Judge effectively deemed her offence to be amongst the most serious of its kind and that it was, in fact, far from that order of seriousness. The Judge's starting point, she contends, ought not to have been any greater than six months.

[3] Ms Riddell's second ground is that, once the Judge had decided to impose on her a sentence of home detention, he ought, as is conventional, to have fixed the term at half the prison term appropriate. He saw that as nine months. From a starting point of six months, it ought to have been no greater than three months.

[4] By way of background, Ms Riddell relies on two letters to which the Judge did not refer. One said that she had sought drug and alcohol counselling with Ngati Awa Social Services. The other confirmed that she had attended weekly sessions for five weeks.

Fact summary

[5] The uncontested summary of facts narrates, succinctly, that on 6 August 2012

Ms Riddell's home address was searched on warrant and that the four cannabis tinnies were found in her handbag. She then said, it narrates, that she had bought them for $20 the Friday before, to sell to Tauranga friends, but they had no money and so she had kept them.

[6] The summary went on to say that Ms Riddell had previously appeared before the Court, as indeed she had twice before. On 27 April 2011, on her second appearance, she was sentenced to 300 hours community work for possession of cannabis for supply. Her other conviction was irrelevant.

Pre-sentence report

[7] Ms Riddell, according to her pre-sentence report, is aged 25 years. She has two children, aged five and a two and a half years. At the time of her offending she was undertaking a free course at her children's Kohanga Reo. Her report describes her as a social person, family orientated and very close to her mother and grandparents.

[8] The report identified as the reasons why Ms Riddell had offended, that she used cannabis, as did her friends and associates. It said that…

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 Riddell v Police

Details

AGLC: Riddell v Police [2012] NZHC 2826
Case: [2012] NZHC 2826
Decision Date: 25 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Riddell v Police is an appeal by Jenna Ellen Riddell against her sentence for possession of cannabis with intent to sell or supply. Riddell was sentenced to six months of home detention and 200 hours of community work by the District Court, Whakatane, for possession of four cannabis tinnies containing 5.5 grams of cannabis head on 6 August 2012. Riddell argues that her sentence is manifestly excessive. The primary issue in this appeal is whether the starting point for sentencing was correctly determined and whether the term of home detention imposed was appropriate. Riddell contends that the starting point for her sentence should not have exceeded six months, considering the circumstances of her offence. She also argues that the term of home detention should have been half the appropriate prison term, which she believes should have been no greater than three months.

The Court found that the District Court Judge had the discretion to set a starting point for sentencing, and the 12-month starting point was within the permissible limits. The Court also held that while the principle of halving the term of imprisonment for home detention exists, it is not a rigid mathematical process. Instead, the Court must consider all relevant factors and the purposes of the Sentencing Act. In this case, the Court found that the sentence of six months of home detention and 200 hours of community work was excessive. It noted that Riddell, a mother of two young children, should not be considered solely as a well-known drug dealer based on the commercial nature of her offence and her previous conviction. The Court concluded that a more appropriate sentence would be four months of home detention and 100 hours of community work.

The High Court set aside the original sentence and substituted a sentence of four months of home detention and 100 hours of community work. This decision reflects the Court's consideration of the nature of the offence, the offender's personal circumstances, and the principles of the Sentencing Act.

Orders