Anderson v Police - [2016] NZHC 942

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-404-000031 [2016] NZHC 942

BETWEEN
MICHELE ANDERSON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 10 May 2016

Appearances:

D Dickinson for Appellant
S K Shaw for Respondent

Judgment:

11 May 2016

JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie on 11 May 2016 at 12.00 midday
Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland
D Dickinson, Auckland

ANDERSON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 942 [11 May 2016]

Introduction

[1] Ms Anderson appeals against the sentence imposed by Judge Taumaunu in the District Court at Auckland on one charge of driving with excess breath alcohol, contrary to s 56(1) of the Land Transport Act 1998.1

[2] Judge Taumaunu disqualified Ms Anderson from obtaining or holding a driver’s licence for a period of six months. He also fined her $200 and imposed Court costs of $130.

[3] These latter aspects of the sentence are not challenged. Rather, Ms Anderson asserts that Judge Taumaunu erred in declining to find special reasons under s 81 of the Land Transport Act to relieve her from the otherwise mandatory minimum disqualification period of six months.

[4] Ms Anderson through her counsel, Mr Dickinson, submits that Judge Taumaunu failed to consider whether the circumstances she faced were capable of being considered special reasons, and further that the Judge considered an irrelevant matter when he took into account the lack of threat, or of immediate violence to Ms Anderson, and that in so doing, he unreasonably curtailed the exercise of the discretion vested in him.

Factual Background

[5] At 10.50pm on Saturday 11 July 2015, Ms Anderson was the driver of a Toyota motor vehicle. She was stopped by the police at a checkpoint near the Newton Road motorway on-ramp in central Auckland. When she was stopped she exhibited signs of having recently consumed alcohol. She underwent an evidential breath test, which returned a reading of 558 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath.

[6] When Ms Anderson was spoken to by the police, she admitted drinking alcohol prior to driving.

1 New Zealand Police v Anderson [2016] NZDC 2011.

[7] Evidence was given by way of affidavit before the District Court to support Ms Anderson’s application under s 81 of the Act. In brief, on the evening in question, Ms Anderson was attending a friend’s 65th birthday celebration. She intended to stay overnight. She consumed alcohol at the party. During the course of the evening, the son of the friend who was celebrating her 65th birthday became agitated. The son was a methamphetamine addict who was withdrawing from the drug. He started to “flip out”. Ms Anderson had recently received an adverse health diagnosis, she was under financial stress and she had lost her rental accommodation. A friend of hers had died some two years earlier and Ms Anderson believes that her friend’s illness was exacerbated by stress caused by the fact that her three children…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Anderson v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] NZHC 942
Decision Date: 11 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Anderson v Police, the appellant, Ms. Michele Anderson, appealed against the sentence imposed by Judge Taumaunu in the District Court at Auckland for driving with excess breath alcohol. The District Court imposed a six-month disqualification from obtaining or holding a driver’s licence, a $200 fine, and court costs of $130. Ms. Anderson's appeal focused on the District Court's refusal to find special reasons under s 81 of the Land Transport Act 1998 to relieve her from the mandatory minimum disqualification period. Ms. Anderson argued that the District Court judge erred in declining to find special reasons due to the circumstances she faced, which included personal stress, health issues, financial difficulties, and a distressing event at a friend’s birthday party.

The legal issues revolved around whether the District Court judge erred in determining that Ms. Anderson's circumstances did not constitute special reasons under s 81 of the Act, and whether the judge unreasonably curtailed his discretion. The High Court examined whether the District Court judge correctly identified and considered all relevant matters in assessing whether special reasons existed and whether there was an error in the exercise of discretion.

Justice Wylie concluded that the District Court judge carefully considered the circumstances and correctly found that there were no special reasons. The judge's consideration that Ms. Anderson was not under any direct threat of violence and that she had not fully explored all alternative solutions to her situation was deemed relevant and appropriate. The High Court held that there was no error in the District Court's decision and that the fine imposed was appropriate given the circumstances. The appeal was dismissed.

In summary, the High Court found no error in the District Court's assessment of whether special reasons existed and upheld the sentence imposed. The Court determined that Ms. Anderson's decision to drive, despite the circumstances, did not meet the threshold for special reasons under s 81 of the Land Transport Act. The Court's decision highlights the importance of exploring all reasonable alternatives to driving under the influence and the high threshold for finding special reasons in such cases.

Orders