THE QUEEN v ROBYNNE ELLEN LAW [1999] NZCA 88 (19 May 1999)

IN THE court of appeal of new zealand

ca 8/99

THE QUEEN

V

ROBYNNE ELLEN LAW

Hearing:	19 May 1999
Coram:	Thomas J Baragwanath J Goddard J
Appearances:	JC Pike for Crown KN Hampton QC for appellant
Judgment:	19 May 1999

judgment of the court DELIVERED BY BARAGWANATH J

[1] Mrs Law appeals against the sentence of a total of two years imprisonment on one count of cultivating cannabis (18 months), possession of cannabis for the purpose of sale between 1 January 1993 and 24 November 1997 (18 months concurrent), unlawful possession of a shotgun and cartridges (6 months concurrent) and possession of cannabis for the purpose of sale on 28 May 1998 (cumulative 6 months).

[2] Mrs Law was convicted jointly with her husband whose sentence on the same counts was for a term of 3½ years.The learned sentencing judge in the District Court at Christchurch determined that Mrs Law and her husband went into the production of cannabis with the purpose of selling it.When the Police raided their jointly owned property on 24 November 1997 they discovered a hydroponics process for cannabis cultivation situated in the garage.

[3] It had been adapted for the growing operation by the installation of heat lamps and venting systems.186 cannabis plants were under cultivation, 5 clean sack bags of cannabis material were found in the garage.A bedroom in the house had been set aside for drying cannabis which had been sorted into bundles reflecting its market value.Rubbish sacks containing cannabis remnants from other cultivations were found in the ceiling.Sorted cannabis, some in deal bags, of a total weight of 6.4 pounds was found in a hall cupboard.The estimated value of the cannabis was of the order of $80,000.The Police also found an unlicensed pump action shotgun and cartridges under the bed in the master bedroom.

[4] Mrs Law and her husband were arrested, charged and bailed.

[5] On a further search on 28 May 1998 a further 22 ounces of cannabis was found in the hall cupboard.It was dry and ready for use.It was not the product of the plants seized during the first search.

[6] The jury by their verdict concluded that both husband and wife were complicit in the offences.

[7] The submission made by other counsel before the sentencing judge and repeated by Mr Hampton today was that Mr Law was the prime mover and Mrs Law a secondary party assisting in the commercial enterprise.The judge, who had seen and heard the witnesses, considered there to be some justification for such view but rejected the suggestion that Mrs Law was a minor cog in the wheel.He accepted that her complicity in the conduct exposed by the first raid was less than that of her husband and that she did not bring the gun into the house.He regarded her complicity in relation to the second episode as much the same as her husband.She went into it with her eyes open.

[8] Mr Hampton referred to Mr Law's long history of involvement with cannabis and the absence of such evidence on the part of Mrs Law.

[9] He submitted that there was no direct evidence implicating her in the planting and growing.He acknowledged however her possession of keys to a sealed room and her authorship of Exhibit 9 which contains considerable reference to "cuttings" including "few cuttings under single light to finish" and "ready to finish at around mid December ... approx 25 put out in shed to acclimatise."

[10] It was open to the sentencing judge to treat Mrs Law as an active participant in her husband's activities even if she did not take part in the physical production of the cannabis.

[11] Mr Hampton submitted that living in the same house as her husband Mrs Law felt she had no real option but to go along with his enterprise and assist from time to time.

[12] He emphasised Mrs Law's absence of prior convictions and responsibility for her and her husband's daughter who is a sixth former living with them.

[13] Mr Hampton conceded that Mrs Law's conduct warranted a term of imprisonment but argued that it should be suspended.

[14] The sentencing judge responded to the submission that

That would give quite the wrong message to persons who are disposed to deal in dope in significant quantities.

[15] We agree with that assessment.The deterrent element of sentences for drug dealing has repeatedly been emphasised by this Court. The defiance of the law seen in the conduct exposed by the raid on 28 May 1998 is notable.

[16] The sentence imposed was within the proper range of the sentencing judge's discretion.

[17] The appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:

Crown Law Office, Wellington for Crown

Geddes & Maciaszek, Christchurch for Appellant