R v Te Ahu CA26/96 [1996] NZCA 393 (29 March 1996)

Last Updated: 13 December 2021

TE AHU Robert James v R

_{Status Court of Appeal Judgments (Archive)}

Court of Appeal

26/96

29 Mar 1996

McKay J - Thomas J - Temm J

Appellant: Robert James TE AHU Respondent: The Queen

Coram No.: 3

Appellant's Counsel: Written submissions

Filing date: 23 Jan 96

Hearing Year: 1996

Keytitles: Criminal Law, Sentencing, Offences, Drugs, Class B Orig. Sentence: 3.5 Years Imprisonment

Judgments: 2696

Criminal Law - Drugs - Sentencing - sophisticated operation for manufacture of cannabis preparation and cultivation of cannabis - cumulative sentences totalling 3 1/2 years not outside range.

Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.

_{IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND C.A.26/96}

_{THE QUEEN}

v

_{ROBERT JAMES TE AHU}

_{Coram: McKay J}

Thomas J

Temm J

_{Judgment: 29 March 1996}

_{(ex parte)}

_{JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY McKAY J}

Robert James Te Ahu appeals against his sentences of two years imprisonment for manufacturing a class B drug,

cannabis preparation, and eighteen months cumulative for cultivation of cannabis. A search warrant had been executed at the appellant's home address, and had revealed an elaborate cannabis brewing and oil producing operation, involving 75 mature cannabis plants and 205 seedlings being grown hydroponically behind a false wall in a shed. There was an expensive lighting system, two expelairs and a mechanical watering system, a bucket containing isopropyl alcohol and a drum containing 510 grams of cannabis plant material. A metal bowl contained about a teaspoonful of cannabis oil.

Page 2

The Judge pointed out that the maximum penalties for these offences were fourteen and seven years imprisonment respectively. The total amount of plant material seized was 6.243 kilograms, or nearly 15lb. This was 223 times the presumptive amount, so that the claim that the cannabis was for the appellant's own use strained credibility, but the Judge accepted that a count of supply of cannabis oil had been withdrawn. He said that nevertheless it was a sophisticated operation. The indications were that the 75 plants could provide between

$18,750 and $30,000 per month at going rates, and if completely plucked the yield of dried cannabis could retain between $187,500 and $300,000. He referred to the decisions of this Court in R v Petersen [1994] 1 NZLR 533(L), R v Latta [1985] 2 NZLR 504 and R v Dutch [1981] NZCA 44; [1981] 1 NZLR 304. The Judge was of the view that even giving credit for the plea of guilty and the fact that the appellant was a first offender in drug matters, this was a sophisticated operation which required a deterrent sentence.

The appellant sought legal aid. Three members of the Court examined the file and advised the Registrar that the grounds of appeal did not disclose an arguable case, and legal aid was accordingly declined. The appellant has since lodged written submissions, and these have now been considered by the Court.

Page 3

The appellant complains that the cannabis was green and wet when weighed, and this would increase the weight. This may be so, but the estimates of value were based not on the weight but on the potential yield from the number of plants being cultivated. Then it is said that some of the plants were just stalks poked into the ground which had

kept some 10 or 20. The Judge was entitled to sentence on the basis of the 75 mature plants and 205 seedlings which were admittedly there, and to have regard to the sophisticated set up which the appellant had established. He was entitled to have regard to the potential yield from the operation, despite the appellant's claims that he did not intend to produce more than a small quantity.

The appellant has referred to the stress imposed on his family, but this is an unavoidable consequence of offending of this kind. He states his intention to put his family first in the future, and it is to be hoped he will do so. We are not persuaded that the Judge has erred in his approach, or that the total sentence of 3½ years is outside the range properly available to him. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Appellant's Counsel: Written submissions

End of Document