A v Police HC Christchurch CRI 2009-409-76

[2009] NZHC 730

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2009-409-000076

A

Appellant

v

POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         2 July 2009

Appearances: Appellant in person

C E Butchard for Respondent

Judgment:      2 July 2009

JUDGMENT OF FOGARTY J

[1]      This is an appeal by Mr A   against a sentence that was imposed on him for a charge of driving a motor vehicle contrary to conditions of his learner’s licence in that he drove unaccompanied. He was fined $400 and disqualified for four months pursuant to s 80 of the Land Transport Act 1998.   The sentencing Judges were two Justices of the Peace who were impressed also by the fact that he has two previous convictions for driving unaccompanied.

[2]      Mr A   is 23 years of age and after the summons was lodged and before sentencing he did sit his restricted licence.  He says he was encouraged to do

that before sentencing by a Judge who he thinks was a Justice of the Peace and a

A V POLICE  HC CHCH CRI 2009-409-000076  2 July 2009

promise that that would result in a lesser penalty.   The Justices of the Peace in sentencing complimented him on having obtained his restricted licence but nonetheless imposed the penalty.  There is no record in the notes of sentencing that they sensed that they were under any obligation to reduce the sentence on that ground.  It is possible that they did reduce the fine, but it is more likely it is simply a compliment that did not have any effect on the sentence.

[3]      The particular part of the sentence that Mr A   appeals against is the disqualification.  He has a partner who is pregnant.  The baby is due in a couple of months.  He still has about two months to go on his sentence of disqualification.  As I have explained to him in argument a Judge on appeal can only reverse a decision by a sentencing Judge when that is an exercise of discretion, if the sentencing Judge has made an error of law or the decision is manifestly wrong.

[4]      Parliament has given Justices of the Peace a discretion as to imposing a period of  disqualification  in  sentences  such  as  this.    The  Justices  of  the  Peace exercising that discretion have decided to impose a period of disqualification.   I cannot find any error.  There might possibly have been an error if those particular Justices of the Peace have  promised a lower sentence by way of sentence indication. But sentence indications are done according to quite clearly defined rules and practices and there appears to be no record that such an event took place.  I am not saying I am doubting in any way that Mr A   got some form of assurance, but it is simply too vague to be relied on.

[5]      For these reasons I am of the view that there is no power of this Court to intervene with  the judgment  of  the  Justices  of  the  Peace.    As  to  the  question, however, that they may not have taken into account the pregnancy of Mr A  ’s partner, I have ascertained that his partner’s mother is in the city and I am satisfied it will be possible to put arrangements into place whereby his partner can be taken to hospital by the family should the baby arrive earlier when the period of disqualification is still in place.

[6]      For these reasons there is no new matter which disturbs the judgment of the

Justices of the Peace and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch, for Respondent