Aramoana v Police - [2023] NZHC 1933

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2023-441-9

[2023] NZHC 1933

BETWEEN
ZAHAN ARAMOANA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 11 July 2023

Appearances:

S B W Yee for the Appellant

A V Bryant for the Respondent

Judgment:

21 July 2023

JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

Counsel/Solicitors
Elvidge & Partners, Napier
S B W Yee, Barrister, Hastings

ARAMOANA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 1933 [21 July 2023]

What happened?

[1] Around 6.40 am on 21 March 2022, Mr Zahan Aramoana, then aged 25, was driving a friend home in Napier, contrary to his learner’s licence. He lost control of the vehicle, crashing into another vehicle coming the other way. He was driving with 792 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. The victim in the other car suffered injuries to her right arm and suffered emotionally and financially from the crash. Mr Aramoana was originally charged with drink-driving causing injury, aggravated driving with excess breath alcohol, and driving contrary to an interlock licence. On 2 November 2022, as the result of plea negotiations, the interlock charge was withdrawn and the drink-driving causing injury charge was replaced by a charge of aggravated careless driving causing injury. The charges of aggravated careless driving causing injury and aggravated driving with excess breath alcohol are subject to maximum penalties of three years and two years’ imprisonment respectively.1

[2] While on bail for those charges, at around 10.30 pm on 23 December 2022, the staff at the Sideline Bar in Napier complained to the Police that Mr Aramoana appeared extremely intoxicated and was trying to drive. The staff had taken Mr Aramoana’s keys off him and when the Police arrived, he was trying to hotwire the vehicle. Breath testing indicated Mr Aramoana had 1,235 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath (almost five times the usual legal limit). Mr Aramoana was charged with attempting aggravated driving with excess breath alcohol and driving contrary to an alcohol interlock. The maximum penalties for those offences are two years and two years’ imprisonment respectively.2

[3] In May 2017, Mr Aramoana had been convicted of driving with excess blood alcohol of 234 milligrams of alcohol per 1,000 millilitres of blood. He was ordered to make reparation of $2,500. In January 2021, Mr Aramoana had been convicted of driving with a breath alcohol level of 711 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. He was ordered to pay a $600 fine and $130 in costs, was disqualified from driving for 28 days, and was given an alcohol interlock licence. Mr Aramoana has also been convicted twice of driving whilst suspended.

1 Land Transport Act 1998 ss 39, 56(1) and 56(4).
2 Sections 32(1)(b), 32(4), 56(1) and 56(4).

[4] Aramoana pleaded guilty to the resulting four charges for the March and December 2022 offending. The Department of Corrections’ advice to the Court assessed Mr Aramoana as being at moderate risk of re-offending with the potential to cause serious harm, which…

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 Aramoana 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: [2023] NZHC 1933
Decision Date: 21 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Zahan Aramoana, the appellant, appealed against the sentence imposed by the District Court for multiple driving-related offences. The appellant had previously been convicted of drink-driving and driving while disqualified and had been fitted with an alcohol interlock device. In March 2022, the appellant drove while disqualified and with an excess breath alcohol level, resulting in a collision that caused injury to another person. In December 2022, while on bail, the appellant was found to be extremely intoxicated and attempting to drive, with an even higher breath alcohol level. The appellant pleaded guilty to the charges. The District Court judge imposed a sentence of imprisonment, taking the December 2022 offending as the lead offence and imposing uplifts for multiple charges, including one that had been withdrawn. The appellant argued that the sentence should be quashed on the basis that the District Court judge had erred in taking the December 2022 offending as the lead offence, imposing a sentence for a withdrawn charge, and referring to a charge of aggravated driving while disqualified. The appellant also sought leave to adduce further evidence of the hardship suffered by his partner and children as a result of his imprisonment. The court held that the appeal should be allowed as the District Court judge had erred in imposing a sentence for a withdrawn charge and in mentioning that charge when imposing uplifts. The court also found that the sentence imposed was too high in relation to the seriousness of the offending. The court imposed a sentence of home detention instead of imprisonment, considering it to be the least restrictive sentence that was appropriate in the circumstances. The court maintained the sentences of disqualification from driving for two years and reparations of $6,990.

This case highlights the importance of correctly identifying the lead offence and imposing appropriate uplifts when sentencing for multiple offences. It also demonstrates the importance of considering the totality of the offending and ensuring that the sentence imposed is within the available range. The case also highlights the importance of considering the impact of imprisonment on the offender's family and the potential benefits of home detention in allowing the offender to engage in treatment programmes and contribute to their family's welfare.

Orders