M v Police HC Invercargill CRI 2009-425-36 [2009] NZHC 2490 (24 December 2009)

Last Updated: 17 February 2016

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

CRI 2009-425-000036
_{CRI 2009-409-000221}

M

Appellant

v

POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 24 December 2009

(Heard at Christchurch (By Video Link))

Counsel: JHM Eaton for Appellant

M J Thomas for Respondent

Judgment: 24 December 2009

_{JUDGMENT OF FOGARTY J}

[1] This is an appeal against the imposition of disqualification from driving for three months as part of the penalties following a plea of guilty that the appellant operated a vehicle on a road, namely, Treble Cone Ski Field Access Road carelessly. He was convicted and fined $500 with $130 Court costs and with a sentence of disqualification for three months on 21 December 2009.

[2] There are two procedural problems with the case. Firstly, the summary of facts is not confined to the driving incident on the Access Road to Treble Cone but

_{includes a driving incident on Mt Aspiring Road. Second, the letter to the Registrar}

M V POLICE HC INV CRI 2009-425-000036 24 December 2009

of the Court entering a plea of guilty notes a conflict between the statements taken from the complainant and that from the appellant and it is not just a “he says/I say” statement. There is a reasoned explanation for the conflict. It is the sort of conflict which strictly speaking should be resolved by the processes under the Sentencing Act 2002 before the penalty is imposed.

[3] Mr Eaton and Ms Thomas, counsel respectively for the appellant and the police, have discussed the best way to deal with this case. They both agree that normally if one focuses solely on the careless use on the Access Road one would not expect the imposition of a disqualification. This is also taking into account that the appellant has no significant previous convictions. In their judgment, which I agree with, it is not worth the cost to the State of sending this matter back to endeavour to sort out the disputed facts and then impose a penalty. It does appear inevitable that there would be a fine imposed and costs and so the doubtful part of the sentence is the disqualification from driving.

[4] Given the procedural history of this which I have just outlined and the problems of bringing it to more formal compliance with the Sentencing Act 2002, I am satisfied that this is a case where firstly, I can find that this Court should intervene, because sentence was imposed without resolving disputed facts. Second, now the matter has been brought to my attention in the way that it has, the appropriate result is to allow the appeal to the extent of quashing the disqualification.

[5] That is my decision.

Solicitors:

JHM Eaton, Christchurch, for Appellant

Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch, for Respondent