Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of New Zealand Decisions |
Last Updated: 24 March 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY
CRI-2013-443-000042 [2014] NZHC 148
BRIAN JOSEPH GRANT
v
NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Hearing: 13 February 2014
Appearances: J Mooney for Appellant
B Sweetman for Respondent
Judgment: 13 February 2014
ORAL JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD
GRANT v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 148 [13 February 2014]
[1] Brian Joseph Grant, the appellant, is aged 76. He has health
problems and it seems his income is derived solely from an
army pension. On 27
November 2013 he pleaded guilty to one charge of driving with excess breath
alcohol and was disqualified from
driving for a period of 18 months. No other
penalty was imposed, Judge Roberts referring to the appellant’s personal
circumstances
in that regard. The Judge also took into account Mr Grant’s
health problems and expressly considered that his only relevant
previous
conviction was for driving with excess blood alcohol in 1987, some 26 or 27
years ago.
[2] Nevertheless, the Judge treated the appellant sternly, both
in terms of imposing an 18-month period of disqualification
and in giving the
appellant an accompanying warning, in which the Judge said:
That is the penalty Mr Grant, but you are now on notice, if you come back
again we will not be worrying about keeping you in the community.
It must not
happen again.
[3] It was within the discretion of the Judge to take account of the
appellant’s limited financial means in imposing a
slightly longer period
of disqualification than might otherwise have been appropriate had a fine also
been imposed, as is the usual
course. But I agree with Ms Mooney’s
submission that, although the Judge referred to the length of time since the
appellant’s
previous drink-driving conviction, he should have, but did
not, treat him in effect as a first offender.
[4] This was not a particularly serious offence of its kind, the Police
having had their attention drawn to the appellant because
he had stopped his
vehicle in the middle of the road; but there was no evidence of any driving
incident that might have caused concern.
I am satisfied also that a 26 or 27
year period of unblemished driving should have effectively cleaned the slate for
the appellant.
[5] I am told from the Bar that a standard approach to a first offence of this kind, bearing in mind that the breath alcohol level was 717 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath, would have been to impose a disqualification somewhere between six and nine months and a fine in the vicinity of $700. There appears to be a convention to correlate the breath alcohol level with the amount of the fine.
[6] Even allowing for a slight uplift on account of the previous
conviction, a sentence of 18 months’ disqualification
was clearly
excessive, in my view, notwithstanding there was no additional financial
penalty. For the respondent, Ms Sweetman quite
properly concedes that to be the
position. She submits, however, that in light of the previous conviction a
disqualification of
some nine to 12 months would have been more
appropriate.
[7] In my view, there is a further consideration which justifies
allowing the appeal in this case. Ms Mooney has pointed
out that the
disqualification significantly increases the appellant’s financial
hardship, given the cost to him of alternative
transport during the period of
disqualification. Ms Mooney now submits on behalf of the appellant that he is
able to pay a fine
on an instalment basis and would prefer to do that if there
is to be a reduction in the period of disqualification.
[8] Bearing in mind in my view that the appellant should have been
treated as a first offender in these circumstances, and taking
account of his
health issues and his financial position, I consider the appeal should be
allowed and the sentence imposed by the
District Court Judge
quashed.
[9] I therefore allow the appeal and quash the sentence. I substitute
a sentence of six months’ disqualification from
driving and a fine of $700
which shall be paid off by the appellant at a rate of not less than $20 a
week.
....................................
Toogood J
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2014/148.html