Solicitor-General v Manson - [2016] NZHC 1224

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF ANY COMPLAINANTS UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

CRI 2016-442-9 [2016] NZHC 1224

BETWEEN
SOLICITOR-GENERAL

Appellant

AND

LESLIE KEVIN MANSON Respondent

Hearing: 7 June 2016

Appearances:

C Brook and J Slankard for the Appellant
T Bamford for the Respondent

Judgment:

8 June 2016

JUDGMENT OF MALLON J

Introduction

[1] Mr Manson pleaded guilty to and was convicted on charges of offering to supply and supplying cannabis to a person under 18 years and supplying alcohol to a minor.1 He was sentenced to 11 months home detention.2 The Crown appeals on the basis that the sentence was wrong in law and manifestly inadequate. As advised orally at the conclusion of the hearing, the appeal is dismissed. My reasons are set
out below.

1 The charges were: one count of offering to supply a class C controlled drug to a person under 18 years old (representative), Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(d) (maximum penalty 8 years imprisonment); two counts of supplying a class C controlled drug to a person under 18 years old (one representative), Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(d) (maximum penalty 8 years imprisonment); and three counts of supplying alcohol to a minor (two representative), Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, s 241(1) (maximum penalty $2,000 fine). Mr Manson was discharged on one count of indecent assault, Crimes Act 1961, s 135.
2 R v Manson [2016] NZDC 7039 [second decision].

SOLICITOR-GENERAL v MANSON [2016] NZHC 1224 [8 June 2016]

Circumstances of offending

[2] The cannabis charges relate to two sisters, aged 15 and 16 years, who Mr Manson met through a boarder who lived with him. The alcohol charges relate to the sisters and a friend. Between 20 March 2013 and 31 October 2013 Mr Manson, via text messages, invited the sisters to his house and let them know he had alcohol and cannabis. When they visited him he would give them cannabis and alcohol which they would consume at his house. This occurred on numerous occasions. On one occasion one of the girls drank so much that she had to sleep at the address. On another occasion they brought a friend, to whom Mr Manson also supplied alcohol.

Personal circumstances

[3] Mr Manson was 31 years old at the time of this offending.

[4] During the initial period of the offending he was on bail on charges of driving with excess breath alcohol, driving while disqualified and dangerous driving, in relation to offending in November 2012. He was then subject to a sentence of home detention, having been sentenced on 29 July 2013 to nine months home detention.

[5] Mr Manson is a recidivist drink driver. The November 2012 offending was his sixth conviction for driving with excess breath or blood alcohol, his fourth and fifth conviction for driving while disqualified and his third…

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 Solicitor-General v Manson

Details

AGLC: Solicitor-General v Manson [2016] NZHC 1224
Case: [2016] NZHC 1224
Decision Date: 8 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the Solicitor-General against the sentencing of Leslie Kevin Manson by the Nelson District Court. Manson had pleaded guilty to charges of offering to supply and supplying cannabis to a person under 18 years old, as well as supplying alcohol to a minor. He was sentenced to 11 months home detention. The Crown appealed on the basis that the sentence was wrong in law and manifestly inadequate. The High Court dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the District Court Judge had intended to impose imprisonment as a starting point but had left open the possibility of home detention if a suitable residence became available. The Court concluded that the Judge had jurisdiction to re-sentence Manson to home detention and that this sentence was not manifestly inadequate. The Court also found that it would be unfair to Manson to now send him back to prison, as he had been told that home detention was a possibility when first sentenced and had been compliant with that sentence since receiving it.

The key legal issue in this case was whether the District Court Judge had jurisdiction to re-sentence Manson to home detention. The Crown argued that the Judge had determined imprisonment was the appropriate sentence at the time of the original sentencing and therefore had no jurisdiction to grant leave to apply for home detention. The Court disagreed, holding that the Judge had intended to impose imprisonment but had left open the possibility of home detention if a suitable residence became available. The Court concluded that the Judge had jurisdiction to re-sentence Manson to home detention and that this sentence was not manifestly inadequate.

Orders