Anglem v Police - [2018] NZHC 329

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

CRI-2018-425-000006

[2018] NZHC 329

BETWEEN
DANIEL TROY ANGLEM

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 5 March 2018

Appearances:

Appellant Appears in Person R W Donnelly for Respondent

Judgment:

5 March 2018

ORAL JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

ANGLEM v NZ POLICE [2018] NZHC 329 [5 March 2018]

Introduction

[1] This appeal came before me today, 5 March 2018. It relates to an appeal by the appellant which it seems was lodged on 23 January 2018. Mr Donnelly appeared before me today as counsel for the respondent. He has filed detailed submissions on this appeal on behalf of the respondent on 20 February 2018.

[2] There was no appearance before me today from or on behalf of the appellant, Mr Anglem. When this matter was initially called this afternoon and it became apparent that Mr Anglem, who I understand is self-represented, was not present in Court I adjourned matters for a period of about 15 minutes in order that enquiries could be made around the courthouse as to whether Mr Anglem may have been present elsewhere. Those enquiries have now been made and I am informed that when this matter was again called there was and is no appearance by or on behalf of Mr Anglem.

[3] I note that there are also no written submissions filed on behalf of the appellant, Mr Anglem.

[4] Notwithstanding this, Mr Donnelly, counsel for the respondent, has indicated that the respondent seeks that this appeal be addressed and disposed of today, 5 March 2018. I now do so.

Background

[5] By way of background, the appellant was sentenced in the District Court at Queenstown on 27 November 2017 for driving with a breath alcohol limit over 400 micrograms per litre of breath1 and driving in a dangerous manner.2 Judge Brandts- Giesen in the Queenstown District Court sentenced the appellant to one year’s supervision, disqualified him from driving for 10 months and ordered him to pay reparation of $4982.3 As I have already noted, the appellant has formally given notice that he now appeals that decision.

1      Pursuant to Land Transport Act 1998, s 56(1).
2      Pursuant to Land Transport Act 1998, s 35(1)(b).
3      Police v Anglem [2018] NZDC 29733.

Facts

[6] Turning now to the factual background in this matter, around 12.10 am on 23 September 2017, the appellant was driving near Queenstown. He came around a moderate bend in the roadway and drove along the centre line. The appellant crashed into a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction, narrowly avoiding a head-on collision as he swerved to the left. The other vehicle had no time to brake or swerve to avoid the collision.

[7] Police attended the scene and noticed that the appellant showed signs of recent alcohol intake. A later evidential blood test returned a result of 773 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. The appellant admitted having several beers before driving.

District Court decision

[8] In his decision in the…

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.

Continue reading Anglem v Police

Details

AGLC: Anglem v Police [2018] NZHC 329
Case: [2018] NZHC 329
Decision Date: 5 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the appellant, Daniel Troy Anglem, appeals against his sentence imposed by the Queenstown District Court for driving with a breath alcohol limit over 400 micrograms per litre of breath and driving in a dangerous manner. The appeal is heard by Gendell J. The respondent, New Zealand Police, is represented by R W Donnelly. The appellant, who is self-represented, does not appear before the Court or file any submissions.

The legal issue before the Court is whether the appellant's appeal against his sentence should be allowed. The Court must determine if there was an error in the imposition of the sentence and if a different sentence should be imposed. The Court will only intervene if the sentence is manifestly excessive and not justified by the relevant sentencing principles.

The Court notes that the appellant appeals on the basis that he was not aware of the ability to apply for an alcohol-interlock licence. The appeal deals with sections 65A and 65B of the Land Transport Act, which require the imposition of certain licence disqualifications and orders for offenders with previous convictions involving alcohol. However, the appellant has not provided any evidence to support his appeal, and there is no appearance or submissions on his behalf. The Court dismisses the appeal as there is nothing before it to consider.

The final order of the Court is that the appeal is dismissed, and the original sentence imposed by the Queenstown District Court remains in place.

Orders