Open Letter in Response to the Sensible Sentencing Trust

I am a lawyer who practises in Hawkes Bay, although from time to time I have cases in Courts all over New Zealand. Criminal defence work is a significant part of my practice.

I saw this article which concerns me greatly - SST: Meth-Making Pot-Smoking Mum Gets a Slap on the Wrist. I was in the Napier District Court when the woman concerned was sentenced, as I was awaiting several matters of my own in the sentencing list that day. I was not her lawyer, and I did not see the summary of facts, although Judge Rea referred to the facts in the sentencing decision, so my knowledge of the facts comes through the decision itself, which was delivered in open court.

First, the woman was not alleged to have manufactured methamphetamine. She struggled with addiction to it and smoked it. It was alleged that on the evening in question, she was minding her eleven year old child. She asked her then partner (whom I understood to be the father of the child) to come around and look after the child while she went out to the supermarket. The child’s father turned up with several associates, so the woman then went to the supermarket.

After she returned home, she discovered green foam and a green tar like substance around the child’s mouth. It was established that the child had eaten a capsule of cannabis oil. She was under pressure not to involve medical services, and was told by the others present that the child would not be harmed by what had been eaten. It is appropriate to note that the drugs had been left out by the others after the woman left her home. Understandably they were worried about getting the authorities involved.

The child was quite clearly not well during the night and the woman took her to the Emergency Department at Hawkes Bay Hospital in Hastings. She did not at first admit that the child had consumed a capsule of cannabis oil, but this was later disclosed after she admitted it to a family member who came to the hospital. Fortunately the child made a complete recovery.

As far as sentencing is concerned, Judge Rea had the benefit of a probation report which recommended supervision. The probation officer, of course, had access to sources of information concerning her background and the benefit of knowing her previous criminal history. By contrast, Scott Guthrie had none of this information, and did not get the facts straight.

Secondly, regarding the sentencing, the Court must apply the law, in this case the provisions of the Sentencing Act 2002. That sets out factors the Court must take into account regarding the sentencing and a number of factors the Court may take into account. Judge Rea is an experienced District Court Judge, having been appointed in 1995. Prior to this time he was the Crown Prosecutor in Hawkes Bay, so he came to the bench with many years of experience in dealing with criminal matters.

Judge Rea is well-regarded by the criminal bar, both defence and prosecution, in Hawkes Bay as a tough but fair judge, always willing to listen (as any Judge should) to both sides, but decisive in decision making after he has heard both sides and reached a conclusion concerning disputed facts.

In this case, the sentence seemed to me to be both reasonable and appropriate. The woman’s culpability lay in not obtaining more timely medical attention and in not initially advising the medical personnel with whom she dealt of all the facts that she knew. She was under pressure from her then partner and his associates not to reveal what was going on for obvious reasons. There is no evidence that she was more generally a negligent or uncaring parent. As I understood the evidence, she had taken steps to sever her connections with these people and the point of supervision is to enable her to have assistance with drug counselling and other programmes. As I recall, Child Youth and Family had been involved and the child was out of her care.

Thirdly, and this was made absolutely clear by the Court, the granting of permanent name suppression was not for her benefit, but for the child’s. As Judge Rea commented, it was to “preserve the dignity of the child.” In short, the Judge was trying to avoid the further victimisation of the child in the future.

Regards

Philip Ross BE BA LLB
Barrister & Solicitor
Director Cathedral Lane Law Holdings Ltd

© Scoop Media