T v Police HC Dunedin CRI 2008 412 6

[2008] NZHC 485

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CRI 2008 412 6

T

Appellant

v

POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         10 April 2008

Appearances: Appellant in Person

R D Smith for Respondent

Judgment:      10 April 2008

ORAL JUDGMENT OF CHISHOLM J

[1]      Having pleaded to a charge of cultivating cannabis, the appellant was ordered to pay a fine of $800.   This is an appeal against that sentence.   Although he was represented in the District Court, he has represented himself on this appeal.   The offending was detected quite by chance, it seems.  The police came to the appellant’s door and detected cannabis odour.  A search revealed seven plants in his wardrobe which were 3-40 cms high.

[2]      Mr T   is 27 years of age.   He has a number of previous convictions relating to drug offending both in the Youth Court and District Court.  In 1996 there

T V POLICE HC DUN CRI 2008 412 6  10 April 2008

were two offences in the Youth Court.   Subsequently the offences have involved possession of cannabis or instruments.

[3]      When imposing sentence the Judge accepted that the cannabis was for Mr T  ’s own use and that there were a small number of plants.  On the other hand, he also took into account the previous convictions and imposed a fine accordingly.

[4]      Mr T   has presented a very lucid written synopsis of the points that he wishes to make on appeal.  Obviously he has strong feelings about cannabis and has been using it for therapeutic reasons.  He feels that he has been victimised on this occasion.  He is also concerned that the collection process has added another $100 to the fine, a point to which I will return.

[5]      As I have explained to Mr T  , this Court can only interfere if the penalty is manifestly excessive or inappropriate.  While the fine of $800 is relatively hefty, especially in Mr T  ’s situation where he is on a benefit, I have not been persuaded that it is manifestly excessive or otherwise inappropriate.    My understanding is that arrangements have been made for him to pay the fine at the rate of $10 per week and that those payments are now under way.

[6]      There  is,  however,  a  concern  about  the  $100  collection  fee  that  has apparently been added to the fine.   It seems that Mr T   was under the impression, after having spoken to his lawyer, that his appeal would hold the matter in the meantime and that there was no need for him to do anything about the fine until the appeal  had been heard.  As it turned out, this was not the position.

[7]      In all the circumstances I do not think that it is appropriate for the collection fee to stand.  The appeal has been pursued in a constructive and entirely legitimate fashion.  Given the size of the fine the appeal stood some prospect of success.  Under those circumstances it is my view that the collection fee of $100 should be rescinded and I would be grateful if the Registrar could pass this request on to collections.

Solicitors:           Crown Solicitor, Dunedin

Copy to:            The Appellant