DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v RATTRAY [2020] NZHC 1416

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v RATTRAY [2020] NZHC 1416 [22 June 2020]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECRI-1997-404-734210[2020] NZHC 1416BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSApplicantAND HEATH MATTHEW JAMES RATTRAYRespondentHearing: On the papersCounsel: J Parry for the ApplicantJudgment: 22 June 2020JUDGMENT OF GAULT JThis judgment was delivered by me on 22 June 2020 at 4:45 pmpursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarSolicitors:Mr J Parry, Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, AucklandCopy to:The Respondent[1] The Crown's 1998 application for review of sentence requires determinationfollowing Mr Rattray's appearance at the District Court in Hamilton on 3 June 2020.Background[2] On 4 July 1997, following a conviction for manufacturing cannabis oil,1Mr Rattray was sentenced in this Court to 18 months' imprisonment, suspended for 18months on condition that Mr Rattray complete a three month residential term atSerenity House to undergo their treatment programme and thereafter remain undersupervision for the deferred period.2[3] On 19 May 1998 a Probation Officer filed an application under ss 64(1)(b) and65(5)(c) of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 for the review and substitution ofMr Rattray's sentence alleging that Mr Rattray had completed the three-monthresidential programme at Serenity House on 6 October 1997 but he was not complyingwith the conditions and requirements of his sentence and that another sentence shouldbe substituted. Mr Rattray had failed to report to his Probation Officer. A warrant wasissued on 10 June 1998.[4] Twenty-two years later, on 3 June 2020, Mr Rattray made a voluntaryappearance at the District Court in Hamilton (where he has active charges). He wastaken into custody on the 1998 warrant. Hinton J made an order cancelling the 1998warrant later that day. Mr Rattray was remanded at large, to appear on 23 June 2020for a review of the 1997 sentence.Crown's position[5] Mr Parry, for the Crown, submits that this Court should dismiss the applicationfor review of the sentence. He acknowledges that the sentence expired over 21 yearsago, and that Mr Rattray did complete the three-month residential drug treatmentprogramme. Further, he notes that the provisions under which the application wasmade have been repealed; he is unaware of any transitional provisions under whichthis Court could carry out its usual assessment regarding cancellation or substitution.1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(b) and (2)(b).2 R v Rattray HC Auckland S37/97, 4 July 1997.He submits that examining the reasons for Mr Rattray's failures to report two decadeslater would serve no public interest, and likely be of no benefit to Mr Rattraypersonally. The Department of Corrections concurs.Result[6] Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction to review the sentence imposed in1997, I agree with the Crown that it would serve no public interest to do so in thecircumstances, particularly given the time that has elapsed since the sentence andapplication for review.[7] The application to review the sentence is dismissed.________________________________Gault J