R V QUENTIN KNAUF HC AK CRI 2009-090-7494 [2009] NZHC 1204 (8 September 2009)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
AUCKLAND REGISTRY
                                                                  CRI 2009-090-7494



                                     THE QUEEN



                                            v



                          
      QUENTIN KNAUF



Hearing:       8 September 2009

Counsel:       R McCoubrey for Crown
               J L Cagney for Accused

Sentence:      8 September 2009


                        SENTENCE OF SIMON FRANCE J



[1]    Mr Knauf is to be sentenced on one
charge of cultivating cannabis. The case
was transferred from the District Court.


[2]    Mr Knauf had ninety plants growing in
a garage which was kitted out with
heating, lighting, fans, thermostat etc.        There is the not unusual debate about
commercial
use or personal use. The circumstances scream out commerciality but:


       a)      Mr Knauf says it is for his own use; and


       b)      the Crown dropped a charge of possession for supply in relation to the
               same cannabis.



R V QUENTIN
KNAUF HC AK CRI 2009-090-7494 8 September 2009

[3]    In such circumstances I consider he is to be sentenced on the basis that
it was
for his own use, with apparently an admission of some small supply to friends but
not seemingly on a commercial basis. In
relation to cannabis, supply to persons over
eighteen is not of course an offence.


[4]    The offending therefore falls within
R v Terewi  [1999] 3 NZLR 62, category
one. Mr Knauf has many previous convictions but none relevant for these purposes.
He has pleaded guilty at an early stage.


[5]    In my view the submissions I have received with respect focus on a more
serious situation than the facts allow. It is significant
cultivation, and that is against
the law and not to be minimised. But it is not drug dealing. Mr Cagney submits the
sentence is in
the imprisonment range but urges a non-jail alternative. He submitted
reports which indicate addiction counselling has begun.


[6]
   Mr Knauf is assessed as suitable for community based sanctions. He has had
several in the past and has generally complied with
them. Concerning a period of
supervision it appears he was compliant rather than particularly engaged in the
process. He has not
previously been sentenced to a term of imprisonment and I
consider the opportunity is there to give him one last chance. My sense
is that I am
perhaps more kindly disposed than others on this matter, but I will give you that
opportunity.


[7]    There have been
sentences of community work.              Mr Knauf, like many,
expresses concern for the future of his children and is worried about
the impact on
them, but does not seem to factor that into his offending decisions.


[8]    I consider more than community work is
needed and settle on a sentence of
community detention.      I chose that rather than home detention to allow better
continuity in
contact with his children.


[9]    Mr Knauf I sentence you to a term of five months community detention. It is
subject to these
conditions:

        a)      curfew from 8.00 p.m. to 7.00 a.m., seven days a week, to be served at
                57 Amberley
Avenue, Te Atatu South;


        b)      an electronic monitoring condition;


        c)      to undertake assessment, treatment
or counselling as directed by the
                Probation Officer, including drug and alcohol programmes.


[10]    You should
report to a probation officer within twenty-four hours of this
sentencing.


[11]    I order destruction of the cannabis and all
associated equipment.




                                                             ________________________
                
                                                        Simon France J

Solicitors:
R McCoubrey
J L Cagney, Barrister, PO Box 576,
Kumeu, Auckland, fax: [phone]