Wallace v Police - [2016] NZHC 338

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF WITNESS/VICTIM/CONNECTED PERSON(S) PURSUANT TO S 202
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

CRI-2016-425-000005 [2016] NZHC 338

BETWEEN
IKE RUSSELL WALLACE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 29 February 2016

Appearances:

W N Dawkins for Appellant
M G McClenaghan for Crown

Judgment:

3 March 2016

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] Mr Wallace was convicted of eight charges of supplying cannabis to minors and two charges of offering to supply cannabis. On 3 February 2016, he was sentenced by Judge Farnan to 20 months’ imprisonment.

[2] The sole ground of appeal is whether the Judge was in error when she declined to exercise her discretion to sentence the appellant to home detention and, in particular, whether she failed to apply s 16(2) of the Sentencing Act 2002 (the Act). Section 16(2) provides that the Court must not impose a sentence of imprisonment unless it has been imposed for the purposes in s 7 and those purposes cannot be achieved by a sentence other than imprisonment and no other sentence
would be consistent with the principles of sentencing in s 8.

WALLACE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 338 [3 March 2016]

The background facts

[3] The appellant was employed by a high school with boarding facilities. He was initially employed as a dormitory supervisor before being appointed hostel manager in 2015. He also had a part-time teaching role at the school. His employment ceased in September 2015 following an investigation into the offending.

[4] During his employment the appellant supplied liquor and cannabis to male boarding students aged between 15 and 17 years of age. To facilitate the offending, the appellant disabled security alarms in the boarding house to allow the boys to leave the hostel undetected. The boys would then go to the appellant’s flat where they would consume alcohol and cannabis. The boys would often stay late and on occasions some of the younger boys would stay the night at the appellant’s flat.

[5] The supply of cannabis to the victims took place between October 2014 and

September 2015. The appellant supplied cannabis to persons under the age of

18 years on 45 occasions and offered cannabis to two boys aged 15 and 16 years on

11 occasions. It is accepted that the appellant made no money from the supply.

District Court sentencing

[6] No issue is taken with the Judge’s calculation of the length of the sentence, nor the factors which were identified as aggravating features of the offending (the premeditation, demonstrated by the disabling of the alarms and security systems, the extent of the offending, and the vulnerability of the victims), or as mitigating features relating to the offender (his previous convictions, remorse, youth and early guilty pleas). What is at issue is whether, having reached an end sentence of
20 months’ imprisonment, the Judge appropriately addressed the option of home detention.

[7] In considering this issue, the Judge…

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 Wallace v Police

Details

AGLC: Wallace v Police [2016] NZHC 338
Case: [2016] NZHC 338
Decision Date: 3 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Wallace v Police concerns the sentencing of Ike Russell Wallace for supplying cannabis to minors and offering to supply cannabis. Wallace, a former hostel manager and part-time teacher at a high school with boarding facilities, was convicted on eight charges of supplying cannabis to minors and two charges of offering to supply cannabis. He was sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment by Judge Farnan. Wallace appeals the sentence, arguing that the Judge erred in not sentencing him to home detention, specifically failing to apply section 16(2) of the Sentencing Act 2002.

The central legal issue is whether the Judge erred in declining to sentence Wallace to home detention, considering the principles of sentencing, including denunciation, deterrence, and the need for protection of the community, balanced against the requirement to impose the least restrictive outcome. Wallace argues he was a suitable candidate for home detention, citing his lack of previous offending, minimal amounts of cannabis involved, and the absence of a commercial element. He also highlights his youth and the support from his family.

The court examined the Judge's reasoning and found that she made a considered and principled choice in imposing a sentence of imprisonment. The Judge acknowledged the appellant's background, lack of previous offending, and family support but ultimately determined that the seriousness of the offending, the breach of trust, and the need for denunciation and deterrence outweighed the suitability for home detention. The court held that the Judge did not err in exercising her discretion, and the appeal was dismissed.

In conclusion, the High Court affirmed the District Court's decision to sentence Wallace to 20 months' imprisonment, rejecting the appeal based on the Judge's balanced consideration of all relevant sentencing principles.

Orders