Edwards v Police [2014] NZHC 998 (14 May 2014)

Last Updated: 19 May 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2014-409-000026 [2014] NZHC 998

MICHAEL JAMES EDWARDS Appellant

v

POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	8 May 2014
Counsel:	P Johnson and K Paima for Appellant K B Bell for Respondent
Judgment:	14 May 2014

_{JUDGMENT OF WHATA J}

[1] Mr Edwards appeals a sentence of community work on a conviction of driving with excess breath alcohol. He does not appeal the conviction, but submits that the sentence was manifestly excessive. This matter came before me and after hearing from counsel, I resolved that the appeal should be dismissed with reasons to follow. This judgment records my reasons.

[2] In the District Court, Mr Edwards faced charges of burglary and two counts of driving while forbidden to do so, together with a charge of driving with excess breath alcohol. On the burglary charge, Mr Edwards was remanded on EM bail. In relation to the driving charges, he was convicted and discharged. The District Court, however, noted that the driving with excess breath alcohol was complicated by the fact that Mr Edwards had a prior conviction for that offence. The Court observed

_{that Mr Edwards had serious addiction issues. The Court accepted that his level was}

EDWARDS v POLICE [2014] NZHC 998 [14 May 2014]

modest, and that it had been some time since he was before the Court on this sort of offence although that largely was because he had been in custody.

[3] The Judge then imposed a sentence of community work and disqualification. The sentence of community work was for 100 hours together with disqualification for seven months.

[4] Mr Edwards appealed on the basis that the sentence of 100 hours community work was manifestly excessive.

Jurisdiction

[5] Under s 250 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 I must allow the appeal if I am satisfied that there is an error in the sentence imposed on conviction and a different sentence should be imposed.

Argument

[6] The essential argument for the appellant was that some consideration should have been given to Mr Edwards’ time in custody and that a sentence of 100 hours community work for a driving offence was ostensibly excessive.

Assessment

[7] I do not consider that the Judge erred or that the sentence was otherwise unavailable to her. In relation to the custody point, in reality Mr Edwards was facing a burglary charge and that provided the reason for his remand in custody. Secondly, there is nothing obviously excessive about a sentence of community work, particularly as this was not his first conviction for such offending, even if that offending was some years ago.¹ It is also consistent with the principle of deterrence

_{and, as I say, available to the Judge in the circumstances.}

¹ 28 April 1993.

[8] The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Solicitors:

Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch

Public Defence Service, Christchurch