	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback Court of Appeal of New Zealand

Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Court of Appeal of New Zealand

You are here: NZLII >> Databases >> Court of Appeal of New Zealand >> 2006 >> [2006] NZCA 155

The Queen v Woolridge [2006] NZCA 155 (6 July 2006)

Last Updated: 19 July 2006

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA41/06

THE QUEEN

v

ARAHI TERRENCE WOOLRIDGE

Hearing: 28 June 2006

Court: Glazebrook, John Hansen and Potter JJ

Counsel: B N Ayrey for Appellant
K J Beaton for Crown

Judgment: 6 July 2006

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Glazebrook J)

Introduction

[1] Mr Woolridge was convicted, following a guilty plea, of supplying a Class A controlled drug. He was sentenced on 25 November 2005 to one year and nine months imprisonment. Lang J declined to grant leave to Mr Woolridge to apply for home detention. Mr Woolridge now appeals against the Judge’s refusal in this regard.

Facts

[2] Mr Woolridge pleaded guilty to supplying methamphetamine to a young relative who was aged 16 at the relevant time. The complainant worked as Mr Woolridge’s personal assistant and the offence occurred in a motel where the complainant and Mr Woolridge were staying while on a business trip. After they had returned from dinner out, Mr Woolridge pressed the complainant to try smoking some methamphetamine. She was reluctant to do so but eventually agreed.
[3] The offence came to light some months later when the complainant told her mother. When confronted by the complainant’s mother Mr Woolridge admitted the supply but tried to minimise its seriousness by arguing that it was better for the complainant to try the drug in a controlled environment.

Sentencing remarks

[4] Lang J said that ordinarily the level of supply in this case would have been regarded as being at the bottom end of the lowest range referred to in R v Arthur (2005) 21 CRNZ 453, that is, a starting point of two years imprisonment. However, Mr Woolridge’s offending was aggravated by the fact that he supplied the drug to a vulnerable minor and that he had abused his position as a figure of authority in the young relative’s life. Lang J therefore fixed a starting point of two and a half years imprisonment.
[5] Lang J went on to consider the mitigating features of Mr Woolridge’s offending. He took into account Mr Woolridge’s early acceptance of responsibility and guilty plea, his remorse and his willingness to turn his life around. Lang J noted that Mr Woolridge had had substantial involvement with methamphetamine in the past. He had used the drug with his estranged wife on a regular basis and it clearly clouded his judgment on the evening of the offending. However, despite regular drug use, Mr Woolridge’s only previous drug-related conviction was for possession of cannabis in 1986. Lang J noted also that Mr Woolridge’s counsel told the Court that Mr Woolridge had not used methamphetamine since December 2004 and that he had told the probation officer that he was in recovery mode. Taking all these matters into account, Lang J reduced Mr Woolridge’s sentence to one year and nine months imprisonment.
[6] Lang J gave consideration to whether or not he should grant Mr Woolridge leave to apply for home detention. He said that Mr Woolridge’s prior persistent use of drugs persuaded him that this would not be appropriate in his particular case. Leave to apply for home detention was accordingly refused.
[7] The Judge also imposed the special condition that, upon release, Mr Woolridge is to attend such counselling, programmes and treatment as may be directed by and to the satisfaction of the probation officer, to deal with any issues relating to his drug addiction.

The legislation

[8] Section 97(3) of the Sentencing Act 2002 provides that leave to apply for home detention may be granted only if the court is satisfied that it would be appropriate to grant leave, taking into account the nature and seriousness of the offence, the circumstances and background of the offender and any relevant matters in the victim impact statement in the case.

The parties’ submissions

Submissions for Mr Woolridge

[9] Ms Ayrey, for Mr Woolridge, submitted first that Lang J did not adequately identify reasons for refusing to grant Mr Woolridge leave to apply for home detention and that Mr Woolridge is thus left with no knowledge of the reasons why leave to apply for home detention was refused. In her submission, prior drug use was insufficient to justify refusal and was outweighed by the factors which supported a positive exercise of the discretion, including that Mr Woolridge had abstained from any drug use for nearly twelve months and was in recovery mode. She submitted that the Judge should also have taken into account Mr Woolridge’s early acknowledgement of guilt, his remorse and his relative lack of previous convictions for drug related offences. Further, Mr Woolridge’s offending was at the lower end of the range of supplying a Class A drug.
[10] Also relevant in Ms Ayrey’s submission was that, while evidence was heard as to the consumption of drugs within the family household, there was no suggestion of commercial supply from the home at any stage. She pointed out that, in any event, Mr Woolridge had been away from the home environment for several months and, in her submission, there was little, if any, likelihood of a repetition of this kind of offending.

Submissions for the Crown

[11] Miss Beaton, for the Crown, accepted that, while nothing extensive is required, the Judge should give sufficient reasons for the refusal to grant leave to explain the basic reasoning process. However, in Miss Beaton’s submission, the s 97(3) factors had been outlined and given careful consideration earlier in the Judge’s sentencing remarks. The Judge had outlined the nature and seriousness of the offence and had also considered Mr Woolridge’s circumstances and background. The Judge accepted that Mr Woolridge’s guilty plea indicated acceptance of responsibility and remorse, but was concerned that Mr Woolridge still lacked insight and acceptance of the seriousness of his actions.
[12] Miss Beaton submitted that it was open to the Judge specifically to identify Mr Woolridge’s history of persistent drug use as a personal circumstance counting against leave being granted. The Judge was also, in her submission, entitled to conclude that leave was not appropriate given the supply of a pernicious drug such as methamphetamine to a teenager by an experienced adult breaching a relationship of trust. Further, in the Crown’s submission, granting leave would undermine the sentencing principles of deterrence and denunciation.

Discussion

[13] Although it involved only a small amount of methamphetamine, the offending in this case was, in our view, very serious given the youth and vulnerability of the victim. It was made more serious by Mr Woolridge abusing his position of trust in a quasi home environment by encouraging the initially reluctant complainant to try such a pernicious and addictive drug.
[14] The seriousness of the offence had been stressed by Lang J in his sentencing remarks and we accept the Crown submission that it was not necessary for him to repeat that when discussing home detention (although it may have been preferable if the Judge had referred back to the earlier discussion). We also accept the Crown submission that, given the need for deterrence and denunciation of such offending, leave to apply for home detention would have been unlikely to have been granted absent special circumstances.
[15] Mr Woolridge’s personal circumstances had been fully canvassed by the Judge. While the Judge accepted that Mr Woolridge had made some progress towards rehabilitation, he was concerned at Mr Woolridge’s lack of insight into the seriousness of the offence. The Judge was entitled to conclude that this together with the prior persistent use of the drug in the home environment weighed against the granting of leave. There were certainly no special circumstances that would have pointed to leave being granted.

Result

[16] For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Iosefa & Co, Christchurch for Appellant
Crown Law Office, Wellington

NZLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZCA/2006/155.html

[4]	Lang J said that ordinarily the level of supply in this case would have been regarded as being at the bottom end of the lowest range referred to in R v Arthur (2005) 21 CRNZ 453, that is, a starting point of two years imprisonment. However, Mr Woolridge’s offending was aggravated by the fact that he supplied the drug to a vulnerable minor and that he had abused his position as a figure of authority in the young relative’s life. Lang J therefore fixed a starting point of two and a half years imprisonment.
[5]	Lang J went on to consider the mitigating features of Mr Woolridge’s offending. He took into account Mr Woolridge’s early acceptance of responsibility and guilty plea, his remorse and his willingness to turn his life around. Lang J noted that Mr Woolridge had had substantial involvement with methamphetamine in the past. He had used the drug with his estranged wife on a regular basis and it clearly clouded his judgment on the evening of the offending. However, despite regular drug use, Mr Woolridge’s only previous drug-related conviction was for possession of cannabis in 1986. Lang J noted also that Mr Woolridge’s counsel told the Court that Mr Woolridge had not used methamphetamine since December 2004 and that he had told the probation officer that he was in recovery mode. Taking all these matters into account, Lang J reduced Mr Woolridge’s sentence to one year and nine months imprisonment.
[6]	Lang J gave consideration to whether or not he should grant Mr Woolridge leave to apply for home detention. He said that Mr Woolridge’s prior persistent use of drugs persuaded him that this would not be appropriate in his particular case. Leave to apply for home detention was accordingly refused.
[7]	The Judge also imposed the special condition that, upon release, Mr Woolridge is to attend such counselling, programmes and treatment as may be directed by and to the satisfaction of the probation officer, to deal with any issues relating to his drug addiction.

[13]	Although it involved only a small amount of methamphetamine, the offending in this case was, in our view, very serious given the youth and vulnerability of the victim. It was made more serious by Mr Woolridge abusing his position of trust in a quasi home environment by encouraging the initially reluctant complainant to try such a pernicious and addictive drug.
[14]	The seriousness of the offence had been stressed by Lang J in his sentencing remarks and we accept the Crown submission that it was not necessary for him to repeat that when discussing home detention (although it may have been preferable if the Judge had referred back to the earlier discussion). We also accept the Crown submission that, given the need for deterrence and denunciation of such offending, leave to apply for home detention would have been unlikely to have been granted absent special circumstances.
[15]	Mr Woolridge’s personal circumstances had been fully canvassed by the Judge. While the Judge accepted that Mr Woolridge had made some progress towards rehabilitation, he was concerned at Mr Woolridge’s lack of insight into the seriousness of the offence. The Judge was entitled to conclude that this together with the prior persistent use of the drug in the home environment weighed against the granting of leave. There were certainly no special circumstances that would have pointed to leave being granted.