Wright v Police - [2012] NZHC 493

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CRI-2012-412-2 [2012] NZHC 493

MATTHEW BRUCE WRIGHT
Appellant
v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent

Hearing: 9 March 2012

Appearances: J Takas for the appellant
R B Bates for the respondent

Judgment: 22 March 2012

JUDGMENT OF CLIFFOR J

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Matthew Bruce Wright, pleaded guilty in the District Court at Dunedin to charges of possession of cannabis for supply (x 1), possession of other Class C controlled drugs (x 2), possession of a cannabis pipe, unlawful possession of a weapon and of breaches of both community work (x 1) and release conditions (x 2). Mr Wright was sentenced by Judge Doherty on 20 December 2011 to an overall sentence of two years’ imprisonment.

[2] Mr Wright now appeals against that sentence on the basis that it is manifestly excessive.

WRIGHT v POLICE HC DUN CRI-2012-412-2 [22 March 2012]

[3] On 6 August 2011 Mr Wright was observed by the Police apparently driving at speed in Dunedin. Mr Wright was stopped and spoken to. The Police smelt cannabis on Mr Wright. When searched, Mr Wright was found to be in possession of three small plastic bags each containing seven grams of cannabis, and a small quantity of other Class C drugs. A mobile phone was also seized. Mr Wright acknowledged those items belonged to him, but made no further comment.

[4] A subsequent search by the Police of the vehicle Mr Wright was driving revealed a shopping bag with 75 grams of loose cannabis leaf, an electronic set of scales, a roll of tin foil, a cannabis pipe and an old .22 rifle. The rifle, the Police accept, was inoperable. Mr Wright acknowledged responsibility for those items.

[5] Analysis of the mobile phone provided evidence of cannabis dealing.

[6] On 27 May 2011, while subject to release conditions for a previous sentence of imprisonment for supplying cannabis, Mr Wright failed to attend a Tikanga Māori Programme as directed. On 3 June and 21 July 2011 he failed to report to his probation officer as directed, on the former occasion as regards his sentence of community work and on the latter as regards a condition of his release.

The offender

[7] Mr Wright is 33 years old. He has a lengthy criminal and traffic history. He has on three previous occasions been sentenced to imprisonment for possession for supply of cannabis – most recently in September 2010 for six months. He has five convictions for breach of community work orders, for which he received a prison sentence of two months in 2005, and one for failing to answer bail for which he was convicted and discharged. He has one previous conviction for possession of an offensive weapon, not being a firearm.

[8] Having recorded the essential facts of Mr Wright’s offending, the Judge noted the aggravating features of the combination of drug dealing and weapons, and his previous convictions for cannabis supply and breaches of community work orders. The Judge also noted…

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 Wright v Police

Details

AGLC: Wright v Police [2012] NZHC 493
Case: [2012] NZHC 493
Decision Date: 22 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthew Bruce Wright has appealed against his two-year sentence for drug-related and weapons charges, arguing it was manifestly excessive. Wright's criminal history includes multiple convictions for cannabis possession for supply and breaches of community work and release conditions. He was found with cannabis, other Class C drugs, a cannabis pipe, an inoperable .22 calibre rifle, and evidence of drug dealing on his phone. The District Court Judge sentenced Wright to twelve months' imprisonment for the lead charge of possession of cannabis for supply, with concurrent terms for the other drug charges and possession of the cannabis pipe; six months' imprisonment for breach of release conditions, with a concurrent sentence for breach of community work terms; and six months' imprisonment for possession of the two weapons. Wright argues the sentence was affected by factual errors and insufficient credit for his guilty pleas. The Police submit that each component of the sentence, and the sentence overall, was within range.

The High Court found that while the sentence for the cannabis offences could not be challenged, the cumulative sentences for the firearms and breach charges were manifestly excessive. The starting points for these charges should have been lower, and credit for guilty pleas should have been given. The court found that a starting point of eight months for the firearms charge was manifestly excessive, and a starting point of four months, reduced to three months for the guilty pleas, would have been appropriate. Similarly, a starting point of eight months for the breach charges was also excessive, and a starting point of four months, reduced to three months for the guilty pleas, would have been appropriate. Taking these starting points into account, the court considered an end sentence of 18 months would have been appropriate. The court also found that some credit should have been given for the three months Wright spent on electronic monitoring bail, reducing the end sentence to 17 months' imprisonment, which the court found was manifestly excessive. The court found that the end sentence could not be saved by reference to the proposition that a higher starting point would have been justified for the cannabis offences if the Judge had not been sentencing in the summary jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed, the sentences imposed in the District Court were quashed, and new sentences were imposed.

Orders