Semisi SINA Iloahefaiva v The King

[2025] NZCA 467

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA796/2024 [2025] NZCA 467

BETWEEN  SEMISI SINA ILOAHEFAIVA

Appellant

AND  THE KING

Respondent

Hearing:                   30 July 2025

Court:  Courtney, Powell and Cull JJ

Counsel:C S Fredric for Appellant J E Bragg for Respondent

Judgment:                12 September 2025 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal against sentence is allowed.

BThe sentence of two years’ imprisonment is set aside.

CMr Iloahefaiva is convicted and discharged.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Cull J)

ILOAHEFAIVA v R [2025] NZCA 467 [12 September 2025]

Introduction

^[1]          Mr Iloahefaiva appeals his sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment¹ for one charge of possession of cannabis for supply² and one charge of failing to carry out obligations in relation to a search of his phone.³

[2]       He appeals on three grounds. First, that the Judge’s starting point of two years and four months’ imprisonment was too high; second, the Judge did not give any credit for his personal background factors; and third, the end sentence should have been converted to home detention.

[3]For the following reasons, we allow the appeal.

Background to the offending

^[4]We adopt the Judge’s summary of the offending from his sentencing notes.⁴

[5]       Mr Iloahefaiva and his partner (and co-defendant at trial) were driving in a car that was stopped by Police. Smelling cannabis from within the car, officers advised that they would search the vehicle for drugs. Both Mr Iloahefaiva and his co-offender were asked to step out of the vehicle. Mr Iloahefaiva sought permission for his co-offender to remove a black backpack from the vehicle.

[6]       Police found a cannabis roach in the car’s ashtray. They then searched Mr Iloahefaiva and his co-defendant’s persons. Inside the backpack, they located 368 g of cannabis. They also located a large number of point bags, scales, two cannabis grinders and $1,100 cash. A glass methamphetamine pipe was also located in the centre console.

¹      R v Iloahefaiva [2024] NZDC 27699 [sentencing notes].

²      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2)(c): maximum penalty of eight years’ imprisonment.

³      Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s 178: maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.

⁴      Sentencing notes, above n 1, at [3].

[7]       Mr Iloahefaiva and his co-offender were found guilty at trial of possession of cannabis for supply. Mr Iloahefaiva pleaded guilty to another charge of failing to carry out obligations in relation to a computer search.  He was sentenced on 14 November 2024. He has now served approximately ten months of his sentence.

Sentencing decision

^[8]          The Judge applied the sentencing bands in the guideline judgment of R v Terewi for cannabis cultivation and dealing.⁵ He adopted a starting point of two years and four months’ imprisonment and applied an uplift of one month for the charge of failing to carry out obligations in relation to a computer search.⁶

^[9]          The Judge applied a reduction of three months for Mr Iloahefaiva’s rehabilitative work undertaken as part of his previous sentence, but noted this was a “mere modest discount” in light of his “substandard compliance” with his community sentence.⁷

^[10]        A further reduction of three months (or 10 per cent) was allowed in recognition of the impact of incarceration on a dependent child.⁸ The Judge however declined to give any credit for Mr Iloahefaiva’s personal circumstances, involving his exposure as a child to alcohol in a household where there was domestic violence.⁹ Finally, the Judge applied a further one month uplift to reflect Mr Iloahefaiva’s previous conviction for cannabis cultivation in 2020.¹⁰

[11]     This resulted in an end sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment.¹¹ The Judge considered commuting Mr Iloahefaiva’s sentence to home detention but declined to do so.¹²  He determined that deterrence and denunciation prevailed, in light of the

⁵      Sentencing notes, above n 1, at [12] citing R v Terewi [1999] 3 NZLR 62 (CA).

⁶      Sentencing notes, above n 1, at [16]–[17].

⁷ At [18].

⁸ At [19].

⁹ At [20].

¹⁰ At [22].

¹¹ At [22].

¹² At [23].

previous conviction for cannabis-related offending, lack of compliance with a previous community-based sentence, and the facts of the index offending.¹³

Approach on appeal

^[12]         To succeed in his appeal, Mr Iloahefaiva must show that there was an error in the sentence reached and that a different sentence should have been imposed.¹⁴ The Court will, generally, not intervene where the sentence is within the range available to the sentencing Judge.¹⁵ The Court will intervene only if the end sentence is manifestly excessive.¹⁶

[13]We deal with each of the three grounds of appeal in turn.

The starting point

^[14]        At the outset, the Judge addressed the defendants’ submissions that the sentencing bands for cannabis cultivation and dealing in R v Terewi need to be revisited in light of changing social attitudes towards cannabis cultivation and consumption. The Judge observed: ¹⁷

… your lawyers have asked me to take into account recent statements made by higher courts which suggests that Terewi may no longer be good law. Further, that the sentencing bands in that decision should be revisited in light of changing social attitudes towards cannabis cultivation and consumption. While that might be the case, even High Court judges have noted that the matter should be for the Court of Appeal to reflect upon and that it would not be appropriate for lower courts to depart from Terewi without the benefit of higher court analysis, made with the benefit of detailed submissions and fully developed argument. It follows that Terewi remains a guideline judgment for cannabis offending and which I intend to apply.

[15]     Acknowledging that a reconsideration of the Terewi sentencing bands is yet to occur, the Judge adopted the Terewi guideline.¹⁸ Of the three categories of cannabis cultivation offending designated in Terewi, the Judge appears to have placed the

¹³ At [23].

¹⁴    Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250(2).

¹⁵    Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482 at [36].

¹⁶    Kumar v R [2015] NZCA 460 at [81].

¹⁷    Sentencing notes, above n 1, at [12].

¹⁸ At [12].

offending in Category 2, given the quantity of cannabis located, the commerciality and the authorities he relied on. Category 2 is described as:¹⁹

… encompass[ing] small-scale cultivation of cannabis plants for a commercial purpose, ie with the object of deriving profit. The starting point for sentencing is generally between two and four years but where sales are infrequent and of very limited extent a lower starting point may be justified.

^[16]        Although the categories have been formulated in cultivation terms, they are also relevant to the supply and sale of cannabis.²⁰ After being referred to a number of authorities, the Judge adopted two years and four months’ imprisonment as the starting point for both Mr Iloahefaiva and his co-offender.²¹

^[17]        The Judge compared Mr Iloahefaiva’s offending, noting that it was less serious, with that in R v Pelikani.²² Mr Pelikani was a passenger in a motor vehicle stopped by a police patrol.²³ He accepted that the 256.4 g of cannabis and $2,690.00 located by Police belonged to him.²⁴ In that case, a starting point of two years and six months’ imprisonment was adopted.²⁵ The Judge also considered Whaanga v R, where a larger amount of cannabis was found on two separate occasions and an initial starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment was adopted.²⁶

^[18]        In reaching the starting point, the Judge concluded that this offending was not opportunistic, noted the reasonably large amount of cannabis, some of which may have been for personal use, and cited the admissions made on the facts.²⁷

¹⁹    R v Terewi, above n 5, at [4].

²⁰    Bishop v R [2010] NZCA 66 at [19] citing R v Leighs CA360/02, 15 September 2003 at [11].

²¹    Sentencing notes, above n 1, at [16].

²²    Sentencing notes, above n 1, at [14] citing R v Pelikani [2014] NZHC 930.

²³    R v Pelikani, above n 22, at [2].

²⁴ At [2].

²⁵ At [30].

²⁶    Sentencing notes, above n 1, at [15]; and Whaanga v R [2024] NZCA 29 at [24].

²⁷    Sentencing notes, above n 1, at [16].

^[19]        In Smith v R, this Court reiterated the observation that Terewi requires reconsideration and revisitation of the penalties for cannabis offending.²⁸ The Court said:²⁹

We accept that this Court has previously recognised that Terewi “may require reconsideration given changing social attitudes and the subsequent passage of the Sentencing Act in 2002”.³⁰ That would necessarily include revisiting the penalties associated with offending within the Terewi categories. For present purposes, however, those categories apply as originally formulated.

^[20]        We too acknowledge those observations that Terewi requires reconsideration, but this is not the appropriate forum for such an analysis. Nevertheless, “[s]entencing where Terewi is engaged has been recognised as being subject to considerable scope for judicial discretion and flexibility”.³¹

^[21]As the Supreme Court said of guideline judgments in Berkland v R:³²

… Where there is a guideline judgment it should be applied by the sentencing judge. But as reiterated by this Court in Hessell, guideline judgments are just that. They assist sentencing judges in the difficult evaluative task they perform. They look over the sentencing judge’s shoulder to ensure there is a “proper judicial evaluation of individual cases”. Guideline judgments do not replace sentencing discretion with a “mechanistic” box-ticking exercise.

[22]     Mr Fredric advocated a starting point of no more than 22 months’ imprisonment. The Crown supports the starting point adopted by the Judge. Although the Judge calculated uplifts by months rather than percentages, no issue is taken with the Judge’s uplift of one month for the concurrent computer search charge. This resulted in an adjusted starting point of two years and five months’ imprisonment for Mr Iloahefaiva’s offending.

[23]     In addition to the authorities considered by the Judge, we have reviewed a number of recent cases, including those put before us by counsel, to ascertain the

²⁸    Smith v R [2022] NZCA 606.

²⁹ At [12].

³⁰    R v Smyth [2017] NZCA 530 at [17].

³¹    Teraki v R [2022] NZHC 2658 at [17] citing Devereux v Police [2017] NZHC 167 at [27].

³²    Berkland v R [2022] NZSC 143, [2022] 1 NZLR 509 at [24] (footnotes omitted).

current sentencing approach to Category 2 cannabis dealing.      In particular, we examined the current starting points and end sentences as follows:³³

Case	Facts	Starting point	End sentence
Kidd v Police	Mr Kidd was on home detention. Police executed a search warrant, locating: •     9.7 g of cannabis; and •     $450 cash. Over 458 g of cannabis had been sold between December 2023 and March 2024, per evidence located on Mr Kidd’s phone.	Three years’ imprisonment overturned on appeal. Two years’ imprisonment substituted.	Two years and three months’ imprisonment set aside on appeal. Substituted with 18 months’ imprisonment.
Whaanga v R	Police executed a search warrant at Mr Whaanga’s home address, locating: •     411.7 g of cannabis •     339.7 g of synthetic cannabis; and •     $31,760 cash. Eight months later, while Mr Whaanga was on bail, police located: •     249.1 g of cannabis; •     131.7 g of synthetic cannabis; •     $13,848.30 cash; •     Ziploc bags; and •     scales.	30 months’ imprisonment with a two-month uplift to reflect offending on bail adopted. Not in issue on appeal.	26 months’ imprisonment set aside on appeal. 22 months’ imprisonment substituted and leave granted to apply for a substituted sentence of six months’ home detention if an address was deemed suitable.
Smith v R	Police executed a search warrant at Mr Smith’s home, locating: •     4.85 kg of cannabis head; •     three cannabis buds weighing approximately 2 g; •     300 cannabis seeds; and •     digital scales.	21 months’ imprisonment upheld on appeal.	Seven months’ home detention upheld on appeal.

³³  Sentencing Act 2002, s 8(e). The cases are: Kidd v Police [2025] NZHC 1580; Whaanga v R, above n 26; Smith v R, above n 28; Teraki v R, above n 31; Thomas v R [2022] NZHC 2494; Habib v Police [2018] NZHC 1224; Watt v Police [2014] NZHC 3055; R v Pelikani, above n 22; and R v Duncan [2009] NZCA 18.

Cannabis was being used for pain relief. Offending fell between Categories 1 and 2 of Terewi.
Teraki v R	Police executed a search warrant at Mr Teraki’s home, locating: •     271 g of cannabis; •     $6,975 cash; •     a tick list recording debts and payments; •     electronic scales; and •     numerous unused ziploc bags.	Two years’ imprisonment upheld on appeal.	Eight months’home detention and 125 hours’ community work set aside on appeal. Six months’ community detention substituted.
Thomas v R	Police executed a search warrant at Mr Thomas’s home, locating: •     772 g of cannabis head; •     digital scales; •     unused self-sealing plastic bags; and •     $12,200 cash (from lawful work).	Two years and four months’ imprisonment upheld on appeal.	10 months’ home detention and 100 hours’ community work upheld on appeal.
Habib v Police	Police executed a search warrant at Mr Habib’s home, locating: •     311.8 g of cannabis bud; •     $2,890 cash; •     electronic scales; and •     several empty snap-lock bags.	30 months’ imprisonment overturned on appeal. 24 months’ imprisonment substituted.	Two years and five months’ imprisonment set aside on appeal. Two years’ imprisonment substituted on appeal.
Watt v Police	Mr Watt was sentenced for various charges. Following a police pursuit, a search of Mr Watt’s backpack revealed: •     69 small bags of cannabis, each weighing a gram; and •     eight slightly larger bags containing 3 or 4 g.	Three years’ imprisonment for the drug offending overturned on appeal. Two year’s imprisonment substituted.	Two years and three months’ imprisonment quashed on appeal. Two years’ imprisonment substituted on appeal. Appeal adjourned, to permit Mr Watt to

put forward a suitable home detention address.
R v Pelikani	Mr Pelikani was sentenced for various charges. Mr Pelikani was a passenger in a motor vehicle, stopped by police. The search located: •     179 cannabis tinnies; •     77.4 g of cannabis head; and •     $2,690 in cash.	Two years and six months’ imprisonment adopted.	Two years and two months’ imprisonment adopted for the cannabis charge.
R v Duncan	Police stopped Mr Duncan’s van. It smelt of cannabis, which led to a search, through which police located: •     1.26 kg of cannabis; and •     $10,500 in cash.	Three years’ imprisonment upheld on appeal.	Three years and three months’ imprisonment upheld on appeal.

^[24]        In our view, the starting point of two years and four months’ imprisonment was excessive in the circumstances. In Thomas v R, the starting point adopted was the same as in this case, but the quantity of cannabis located was twice as high with additional cannabis material.³⁴ Similarly, in Habib v Police, the starting point was two years’ imprisonment for slightly less cannabis than located in this case, but with more cash.³⁵

^[25]        As noted, the Judge referred to R v Pelikani, saying the offending here was slightly less serious.³⁶ We observe that the authorities referred to in R v Pelikani in 2014, adopted higher starting points than the authorities before us. For example, the Court in Pelikani referred to the case of R v Tini, which adopted a starting point of 25 months’ imprisonment for possession of 68 g of cannabis and a sum of $211 in cash.³⁷

³⁴    Thomas v R, above n 33.

³⁵    Habib v Police, above n 33.

³⁶    Sentencing notes, above n 1, at [14], citing R v Pelikani, above n 22.

³⁷    R v Pelikani, above n 22, citing R v Tini [2013] NZHC 2184.

[26]     The Judge considered the facts of this case warranted a sentence of deterrence and denunciation over that of rehabilitation and reintegration and opted for a sentence of imprisonment.³⁸ As this Court has remarked, the sentencing bands for cannabis dealing need to be revised in light of society’s changing attitudes to cannabis.³⁹ They must also be proportionate to sentencing tariffs for drug dealing in more serious classes of drugs.

[27]     We consider a starting point of two years’ imprisonment is more consistent with current sentencing and appropriate here.

Mitigating factors

Impact on children and rehabilitative prospects

^[28]        Citing Philip v R and Sweeney v R, the Judge considered that a discrete adjustment of 10 per cent or three months was warranted in this case, to reflect the impact of incarceration on Mr Iloahefaiva’s children.⁴⁰ The Judge also applied a reduction of three months for Mr Iloahefaiva’s rehabilitative work.⁴¹

[29]     However, the issue on appeal relates to the allowance given for Mr Iloahefaiva’s personal background.

Personal background

^[30]        The Judge noted that he had the benefit of a pre-sentence report, which documented that Mr Iloahefaiva is in his thirties, of Tongan and Samoan descent.⁴² Mr Iloahefaiva experienced “a good childhood in a religious household but … there was domestic violence within the home as well as alcohol abuse”.⁴³ The product of that early exposure was “problems with alcohol and to a lesser extent, drugs”.⁴⁴

³⁸    Sentencing notes, above n 1, at [23].

³⁹    Smith v R, above n 28, at [12]; and R v Smyth, above n 30, at [17].

⁴⁰    Sentencing notes, above n 1, at [19] citing: Philip v R [2022] NZSC 149, [2022] 1 NZLR 571; and

Sweeney v R [2023] NZCA 417.

⁴¹    Sentencing notes, above n 1, at [23].

⁴²    Sentencing notes, above n 1, at [9].

⁴³ At [9].

⁴⁴ At [9].

On leaving school, Mr Iloahefaiva pursued a career in the army, in which he excelled.⁴⁵ After four years, he left the army, and his life took a turn for the worse.⁴⁶ He is a father to several children, including one with his co-offender, who at the time of sentencing was pregnant with another.⁴⁷

^[31]        The Judge noted that at the time of the offending, Mr Iloahefaiva was subject to post-detention conditions.⁴⁸ Mr Iloahefaiva’s compliance with those conditions, the Judge observed, was substandard, particularly given a number of failed random alcohol and drug tests.⁴⁹ The Judge finally noted that Mr Iloahefaiva had a number of previous convictions, including one for cultivating cannabis in 2020.⁵⁰

^[32]        The Judge however, declined to permit an adjustment for personal circumstances, including Mr Iloahefaiva’s exposure to alcohol, drugs, and family violence at a young age, because there was no “causal connection between those features and [Mr Iloahefaiva’s] cannabis related offending”.⁵¹ The Judge emphasised that the deprivation “did not prevent [Mr Iloahefaiva] from joining the army, nor making a positive impact in the role as a soldier for four years”.⁵²

^[33]        We note the Supreme Court’s observations in Berkland v R that “[t]he impacts of deprivation are … complex, multi-layered and non-linear, and they are unique to every offender”.⁵³

^[34]        Mr Iloahefaiva reported to the pre-sentence report writer, that his “problematic substance use stems from his childhood”. He attributes his trajectory following leaving the army to alcohol and cannabis, usage of which appears to have informed his decision-making leading up to this point. We note also that, as the Supreme Court observed in Berkland v R, the fact that the evidence of Mr Iloahefaiva’s background was primarily self-reported does not preclude a reduction.⁵⁴

⁴⁵ At [9].

⁴⁶ At [9].

⁴⁷ At [9].

⁴⁸ At [10].

⁴⁹ At [10].

⁵⁰ At [10].

⁵¹ At [20].

⁵² At [20].

⁵³    Berkland v R, above n 32, at [115].

⁵⁴ At [129].

[35]     Although a different approach may have been taken to Mr Iloahefaiva’s personal circumstances, we consider that it was open to the Judge to determine that the “nature and strength” of the contribution to the offending of his background was not so great as to require a reduction at sentencing.

Did the Judge err in refusing to commute the sentence to home detention?

[36]     At the time of sentencing, the address checks for the proposed address, being the address of Mr Iloahefaiva and his partner, were not completed given time constraints. At the time, his Supervising Probation Officer was going to issue a direction not to reside at that address (under s 80O(e) of the Sentencing Act 2002) because of the history of police callouts to that address.

^[37]        As Mr Iloahefaiva received an end sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment, he was eligible for home detention.⁵⁵ Once a short-term sentence is reached, the decision to commute that sentence to home detention is a discretionary decision that must be made in a way that gives effect to the purposes and principles contained in the Sentencing Act.⁵⁶ The issue on appeal is whether a sentence of home detention should have been imposed in these circumstances.⁵⁷

[38]     The Crown argues that the Judge’s decision to sentence Mr Iloahefaiva to imprisonment fairly reflected the principles of deterrence and denunciation, given his conviction from December 2020 for cultivating cannabis (for which he was sentenced in February 2022).

[39]     The defence position is that the end sentence should have been community-based. The defence submits that Mr Iloahefaiva has no convictions for breaching sentences and that his pre-sentence report, past service as a soldier, and past compliance with rehabilitation all point strongly in favour of a community-based sentence.

⁵⁵    Sentencing Act 2002, s 15A.

⁵⁶    Osman v R [2010] NZCA 199 at [20] and Doolan v R [2011] NZCA 542 at [38].

⁵⁷    Kahi v R [2024] NZCA 590 at [25].

[40]     There are three reasons why we consider the Judge’s refusal to impose a community-based sentence or commute the sentence to home detention contributed to a manifestly excessive end sentence.

[41]     First, the Department of Corrections recommended in its pre-sentence report a community-based sentence to address Mr Iloahefaiva’s rehabilitative needs including treatment for his alcohol and drug issues. While his current address was deemed to be unavailable given the history of police callouts, the Judge did not give Mr Iloahefaiva any opportunity to find an alternative address to be assessed.

[42]     Secondly, in sentencing Mr Iloahefaiva’s co-offender, the Judge imposed the same starting point in respect of her offending and acknowledged “there should ideally be parity as between you and your co-defendant”.⁵⁸ Because the co-offender had dependents and no previous convictions, she received a sentence of 10 months’ home detention.

[43]     In sentencing Mr Iloahefaiva, the Judge declined to commute the sentence to home detention because of his previous conviction for cannabis cultivation and his failed drug tests while on post-detention conditions for that offending.⁵⁹ Although the Judge recognised that Mr Iloahefaiva “obviously require[d] alcohol and drug treatment”, the Judge considered the sentencing purposes of deterrence and denunciation prevailed over rehabilitation and reintegration, with treatment to occur as part of release conditions.⁶⁰ This overlooked the active steps Mr Iloahefaiva had taken to address his anger/violence and addiction issues, his wish to remain drug-free and his need for treatment in a community-based alcohol and drug programme.

[44]     While a difference in sentence length or severity can be justified for a co-offender, it does not follow in our view that the only option for Mr Iloahefaiva was a custodial sentence in prison. As in Teraki and Thomas, a sentence of home detention and community work, with conditions that Mr Iloahefaiva attend drug and alcohol counselling, would more appropriately serve the purposes of sentencing, other than

⁵⁸    Sentencing notes, above n 1, at [25].

⁵⁹ At [23].

⁶⁰ At [23].

just deterrence and denunciation.⁶¹ While it was open to the Judge to consider that deterrence and denunciation prevails, it did not justify overlooking Mr Iloahefaiva’s reintegration, both within the community and with his children.

[45]     Third, in light of the need to revise the Terewi guidelines and the changing attitudes towards cannabis-dealing offending, Mr Iloahefaiva’s sentence should align with current sentencing in comparable cases of cannabis offending.

^[46]        We have reached the view that the end sentence of two years’ imprisonment for this cannabis offending was manifestly excessive in these circumstances. The starting point was higher than current sentencing cases by a margin of at least four months and the least restrictive sentence was not adequately considered.⁶²

[47]     The appeal is therefore allowed. We set aside the sentence of two years imprisonment.

What is the appropriate replacement sentence?

[48]     Calculating a replacement sentence for Mr Iloahefaiva based on a starting point of two years’ imprisonment, then applying the various adjustments made by the Judge, results in a revised sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment. Commuting that sentence to home detention results in a sentence of 10 months’ home detention.

[49]     However, the appellant has already served approximately ten months’ imprisonment.  Deducting the period of imprisonment already served from the 10 months’ home detention, using a one-for-one approach,⁶³ results in an end sentence of zero months home detention. Therefore, we consider the appropriate outcome is

⁶¹  Teraki v R, above n 31; and Thomas v R, above n 33.

⁶²  Sentencing Act, s 8(1)(g).

⁶³ Without firmly deciding whether a one-for-one or two-for-one approach is appropriate, we have proceeded to apply a one-for-one approach in the present case: see Longman v Police [2017] NZHC 2928 at [9]–[10]; and Diaz v R [2021] NZCA 426 at [50]. We consider the ten months’ imprisonment already served by Mr Iloahefaiva has met the purposes of sentencing of punishment, deterrence and denunciation.

for Mr Iloahefaiva to be convicted and discharged, such that he is released on time served.⁶⁴

Result

[50]The appeal against sentence is allowed.

[51]The sentence of two years’ imprisonment is set aside.

[52]Mr Iloahefaiva is convicted and discharged.

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Manukau for Respondent

⁶⁴  See Crighton v R [2020] NZCA 33, where the appellant had served 11 months’ imprisonment, but a Full Court of the Court of Appeal considered a sentence of 12 months’ intensive supervision should have been imposed instead. Rather than resentencing the appellant to a reduced sentence of supervision as proposed by counsel, the Court convicted and discharged the appellant, saying that “sentence best resembles the outcome had Ms Crighton been sentenced … as she should have been”.