Tweedie v Police HC Christchurch Cri-2010-409-000017

[2010] NZHC 898

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2010-409-000017

CARRICK JAMES DAVID TWEEDIE

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:10 March 2010

Counsel:A C Kelland for Appellant

M Zintl for Respondent

Judgment:10 March 2010 

ORAL JUDGMENT OF PANCKHURST J

[1]        On 25 February I heard appeals brought by Carrick and Andrew Tweedie against a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment for cultivating cannabis.  For the reasons given in that oral judgment I concluded that the sentence imposed was inappropriate, since a finding that the cultivation was for a commercial purpose was not in my view sustainable.

[2]        In the event I was able to deal with the appeal of Andrew Tweedie that day because an appendix to his pre-sentence report was available.  His appeal was allowed and he was sentenced to four months’ community detention.  Account was taken of the period he had already served.

[3]        In relation to Carrick Tweedie, however, there was no up-to-date pre-sentence report.  Nor, therefore, an appendix and I could not consider either home detention or community detention.  Preparation of an appendix was called for, but there have been complications which have resulted in the appellant electing not to pursue a community-based sentence, but rather he wishes to serve the balance of whatever term of imprisonment he is afflicted with on appeal.

[4]        Accordingly I have heard very brief submissions directed to what the substituted term should be.  I note that the appellant has now been in custody since 3 February when the sentence was imposed in the District Court.  I have regard to his past record, including the fact of his imprisonment in May of 2009 for six months on an unrelated dishonesty offence, which means that he was very shortly out of prison when this further matter was committed. 

[5]        In all the circumstances I allow the appeal, quash the sentence of 12 months and substitute three months’ imprisonment.

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:

Cuningham Taylor, Christchurch for Appellant

Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch for Respondent