THE QUEEN v DANNY TUATAU MAEVA [2000] NZCA 29 (28 February 2000)

IN THE court of appeal of new zealand

ca441/99

THE QUEEN

V

DANNY TUATAU MAEVA

Hearing:	28 February 2000
Coram:	Blanchard J Robertson J Williams J
Appearances:	S Fernando for Applicant K B F Hastie for Crown
Judgment:	28 February 2000

judgment of the court delivered by blanchard j

[1] This is an application for leave to appeal under s144 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, the High Court having dismissed an appeal from the District Court at Papakura and refused leave for a further appeal to this Court.

[2] The points of law sought to be raised concern sentences totalling 45 months imprisonment imposed upon Mr Maeva in the District Court on 25 May 1999 as follows:

Offence	Date of Offence	Sentence
1. Excess breath alcohol	4 May 1999	18 months
2. Driving while disqualified	4 May 1999	18 months
3. Driving while disqualified	1 August 1998	12 months
4. Refusing a request for a blood specimen	1 August 1998	3 months
5. Breach of periodic detention	26 June 1998	3 months
6 Driving while disqualified	3 June 1998	9 month suspended sentence activated
7. Breaking and entering	3 June 1998	9 month suspended sentence activated

[3] The nine month suspended sentence had originally been imposed in the District Court at North Shore on 22 June 1998.The eighteen months imposed on charge 1 was made cumulative upon the eighteen months imposed on charge 2 which in turn was cumulative on the activated sentences (charges 6 and 7).It will be noted that there were four separate incidents of offending.Mr Maeva has a considerable criminal record relating to driving while disqualified or driving with excess breath/blood alcohol.The excess breath alcohol offences for which the current sentences have been imposed were his ninth and tenth, whilst those for driving while disqualified were his thirteenth and fourteenth offences.

[4] Counsel for Mr Maeva has sought to raise two points which are said to be questions of law which, in terms of s144, by reason of general or public importance or for any other reason ought to be submitted to this Court for decision.They are:

1. The appropriateness of the imposition of cumulative sentences for two offences committed during the course of one act of driving - whilst disqualified and also with excess breath alcohol;

2. Whether the totality principle has been applied in a manner conforming with accepted sentencing guidelines.

[5] Neither point seems to us to raise a question of law, there being no general prohibition on the imposition of such sentences cumulatively.Both matters raised on behalf of the applicant are in reality a challenge to an application of settled law to particular facts.They certainly do not raise any question of general or public importance or any other reason for a second appeal.

[6] This Court has previously pointed out that it will only be in rare cases that a sentencing matter raises a question of law of such importance as to justify a further appeal (R v Goodwin, CA426/93, 13 October 1993; Waitakere City Council v Hertzke [1997] NZRMA 222, 228).

[7] The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors

Crown Solicitor, Wellington