Perkins v Police HC Greymouth CRI-2011-418-6 [2011] NZHC 1186 (4 October 2011)

Last Updated: 22 October 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GREYMOUTH REGISTRY

_{CRI-2011-418-6}

BETWEEN ANDREW HAYES PERKINS Appellant

AND NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 3 October 2011

Appearances: Appellant (in person)

P A Currie for Respondent

Judgment: 4 October 2011

_{JUDGMENT OF MILLER J}

[1] Mr Perkins appeals his disqualification of 18 months and a fine of $1,500 for his tenth offence of driving with excess alcohol. His grounds of appeal focus exclusively on the term of the disqualification.

[2] On 22 April 2011 Mr Perkins was stopped at a compulsory check point when riding his motorcycle on Kapiti Road, Paraparaumu. He recorded an evidential reading of 754 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath, almost twice the legal limit. His explanation was that he was still okay to ride.

[3] Mr Perkins is 48 years of age, and unemployed. It appears that he suffers from a brain injury following a car accident in 1981. Since then he has earned a substantial number of convictions, including not only the nine previous convictions for driving with excess alcohol but also 17 others related to driving, eight for breaching court orders (including driving while disqualified). His most recent drink- driving conviction, however, was in 1999.

_{[4] There are no sentencing notes available, so I must approach the matter afresh.}

ANDREW HAYES PERKINS V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC GRY CRI-2011-418-6 4 October 2011

[5] Mr Perkins has filed two notices of appeal, which largely overlap. He maintains that the disqualification is extreme, that he has not been disqualified since his conviction since 1999, that disqualification will prevent him from gaining a job, that he is a truck driver and too old to resit heavy traffic licence tests, that a mitigating factor, the death of his sister, was not mentioned, and that if there were a problem with his ability to ride his motorcycle while drunk he would be dead. Of these, the only significant ground is the absence of any conviction for driving with excess alcohol since 1999.

[6] It is evident that Mr Perkins suffers a disability, presumably as the result of his injury. The probation officer describes her interview with him as problematic, saying he continually went off on a tangent, abusing government and the police and ACC. He soon began to abuse the probation officer too. She suggested that the court obtain a health assessment under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. He elaborated on his grievances before me. However, there is nothing to suggest that he is mentally disordered or intellectually disabled so as to merit compulsory care, and no question of imprisonment arises in any event. Nothing in his criminal history suggests that the issue has ever arisen. He has been allowed to obtain a licence, and there is no reason why he should not have to prove he can pass the tests. In the circumstances, I treat his unfortunate life story as a mitigating factor.

[7] Mr Perkins’ breath alcohol level was high, and although he has not offended in 12 years he has many previous convictions of a relevant nature. I accept that his disability may affect his judgement and his attitude towards the law and I accept, as I have said, that his background is a mitigating factor. Even so, it cannot possibly be said that a disqualification of 18 months is manifestly excessive; far from it, it was only six months above the mandatory minimum period.

[8] The appeal is dismissed.

Miller J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor’s Office, Christchurch for Respondent