Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Holmes DC Morrinsville CRI-2013-039-471 [2013] NZDC 1993 (30 October 2013)

Last Updated: 14 June 2023

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT MORRINSVILLE

CRI-2013-039-000471

MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT

Informant v

CHRISTOPHER HOLMES Defendant

Hearing:	30 October 2013
Appearances:	S Symon for the Informant M Wright for the Defendant
Judgment:	30 October 2013

NOTES OF JUDGE E M THOMAS ON SENTENCING

[1] Mr Holmes, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of carrying on business as a vehicle dealer without being registered. You should know that that offence carries a maximum fine of $50,000. You do not dispute the summary of facts. Over a period of around 12 months you bought and sold 11 vehicles. That was in excess of the maximum that you are allowed to deal in without being a registered motor vehicle dealer.

[2] Your counsel has described your activities as a hobby. I am not going to argue with that description but at the same time the hobby was designed to make you a little bit of money on the side. You come from the car dealing industry. You are currently working in the car dealing industry. There are very sound reasons why those who deal in cars even for a small amount of money even as a hobby need to be properly regulated. The effects of not being regulated properly are two-fold.

MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT v CHRISTOPHER HOLMES DC CRI- 2013-039-000471 [30 October 2013]

Number one, there is insufficient protection for those who buy, especially cheap motor vehicles from people who are not registered. And two, it is an unfair competitive advantage that you have over properly registered motor vehicle dealers who have the added responsibilities of registration as well as the added costs and overheads that go with it.

[3] The informant has provided material which has demonstrated the huge variation in penalties over the years for this kind of offending. There is no doubt, however, that what is paramount when it comes to sentencing are the principles of deterrence and denunciation. A fine has to be more than simply a commercial cost of operating a hobby such as this. A fine has to be more than simply you repaying the profit that you have made in your dealing. It needs to send a far stronger message than that. Not just to you but to others who operate hobbies in the same way that you have done. It is notoriously easy to do this and it is notoriously difficult to detect. Unless fines are meaningful, people are going to simply consider that to be a necessary operating cost of operating a hobby like this one.

[4] I appreciate that you have not made a significant amount of profit here. You have no relevant previous convictions. However, I see no reason to depart from the starting point that has been advanced by the informant. That starting point was adopted in the District Court in Dunedin in the case of New Zealand Transport Authority v Proctor DC Dunedin CRI-2013-012-002131, 5 September 2013, Mr Proctor’s offending was very similar to yours and I therefore take a starting point of a fine of $6000. I give you the maximum discount for your guilty plea of 25 percent. You are convicted and fined $4500, Court costs of $130, and I order you to pay a solicitor’s fee of $300.

E M Thomas District Court Judge