TAUMATA V POLICE HC DUN CRI 2009-412-000022 [2009] NZHC 1352 (28 September 2009)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
DUNEDIN REGISTRY
                                                                CRI 2009-412-000022



                            TANIA MERE TAUMATA
                                   Appellant



                              
           v



                                      POLICE
                                     Respondent



Hearing:       28
September 2009

Appearances: R Daysh for Appellant
             R D Smith for Respondent

Judgment:      28 September 2009


   
                      JUDGMENT OF FOGARTY J



[1]    On 26 August last I delivered a judgment which had the character of an
interim
judgment dealing with an appeal by Ms Taumata, a 42 year old woman,
against a sentence of seven months imprisonment imposed on her
on two charges of
careless driving and driving under the influence. I do not propose to restate any of
the matters set out in that
judgment.    I have reviewed the judgment this morning
before coming into Court against a supplementary report prepared by the Department
of Corrections. That has confirmed in my mind that the most appropriate sentence in
this case is community detention rather than
imprisonment. For the reasons set out
in that judgment which are now confirmed, the appeal is allowed to this extent: the
sentence
of imprisonment is quashed; the disqualification remains in place; and in
place of a sentence of imprisonment I have heard submissions
on community



TAUMATA V POLICE HC DUN CRI 2009-412-000022 28 September 2009

detention rather than home detention, I having expressed
a preference for community
detention. It is appropriate that I say a few words in that regard.


[2]    This is a case where I think
it is appropriate for the Court to recognise that
Ms Taumata has a genuine wish and a real motive to become drug free, to stabilise
her life to enable her to resume much better contact and possibly in the long run have
her two youngest children living with her.


[3]    Accordingly, the best way to achieve this is, if she can, to get into some
residential programmes. Because of this goal
and bearing in mind that the earliest
residential programme that might be available to her is December and that that
programme lasts
for three months and that I am delivering this judgment at the end
of September, I agree with Mr Smith, for the Crown, that it is
appropriate that the
maximum period for community detention of six months be imposed. Were the facts
otherwise there might be a case
for a shorter period taking into account that she has
been in prison since 11 August. She is otherwise due for release on 24 November.
However, it is appropriate that the community detention sentence, so far as is
possible, covers the period of the rehabilitation
programmes that hopefully will
become available. Ms Daysh has not offered any submissions in opposition to that.


[4]    Accordingly,
I substitute a sentence of community detention for six months
with intensive supervision on the following conditions:


       1.
     That Ms Taumata undertake employment, or treatment programmes,
               only if approved and directed by the probation
officer.


       2.      That she complete assessments with the Dunedin Community Alcohol
               and Drug Service and the
Dunedin Salvation Army Bridge
               programme, including attendance at such community group meetings
               as directed
and to the satisfaction of the probation officer, in
               consultation with those agencies.


       3.      To achieve
submission to the Dunedin Salvation Army Bridge
               residential programme and complete the programme to the

       
        satisfaction of the probation officer and the Salvation Army
                programme co-ordinator.


        4.      She
is to reside at 58 Hillary Street, Pine Hill, Dunedin.


        5.      She is to be subject to a curfew from 9.30 pm to 7.00 am.


[5]     The sentence of imprisonment is quashed as of Thursday, 1 October, upon
the same day the community detention sentence will start.


[6]     The intensive supervision
order is to continue for one year following the
completion of the community detention sentence, which will start on Thursday,
1 October.




Solicitors:
R Daysh, Dunedin, for Appellant
Crown Solicitor, Dunedin, for Respondent