Ashby v Police
[2021] NZHC 1306
•4 June 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE
CRI-2021-454-13
[2021] NZHC 1306
BETWEEN TYSON RAYMOND PATRICK ASHBY
Appellant
AND
NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent
Hearing (via AVL): 27 May 2021 Appearances:
S J Parsons for the Appellant E Pairman for the Respondent
Judgment:
4 June 2021
JUDGMENT OF GAULT J
Solicitors:
Mr S J Parsons, Cooper Cross Ltd, Palmerston North
Ms E Pairman, Ben Vanderkolk & Associates, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Palmerston North
ASHBY v POLICE [2021] NZHC 1306 [4 June 2021]
Introduction
[1] Mr Ashby appeals against an overall sentence of two years and nine months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge B R Northwood in the Palmerston North District Court on 12 March 2021,1 following convictions on the following charges:
(a)two charges of assault on person in family relationship;2
(b)two charges of possession of an offensive weapon;3
(c)two charges of wilful damage;4
(d)three charges of driving while disqualified;5
(e)two charges of theft of property (under $500);6
(f)four charges of operating a motor vehicle recklessly;7
(g)one charge of threatening language;8
(h)one charge of driver gave false information as to own identity;9
(i)one charge of failing to stop when followed by red/blue flashing lights;10 and
(j)one charge of breach of conditions of intensive supervision.11
1 New Zealand Police v Ashby [2021] NZDC 4471 (sentencing notes of Judge B Northwood).
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 194A: maximum penalty 2 years’ imprisonment.
3 Crimes Act 1961, s 202A(4)(b): maximum penalty 2 years’ imprisonment; and Crimes Act 1961, s 202(4)(a): maximum penalty 3 years’ imprisonment.
4 Summary Offences Act 1981, s 11(1)(a): maximum penalty 3 months’ imprisonment, $2,000 fine.
5 Land Transport Act 1998, ss 32(1)(a) and 32(4): maximum penalty 2 years’ imprisonment,
$6,000 fine.
6 Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(d): maximum penalty 3 months’ imprisonment.
7 Land Transport Act 1998, s 35(1)(a): maximum penalty 3 months’ imprisonment, $4,500 fine.
8 Summary Offences Act 1981, s 21(1)(a): maximum penalty 3 months’ imprisonment.
9 Land Transport Act 1998, ss 52A(1)(c), 52A(2) and 114(3)(b): maximum penalty $10,000 fine.
10 Land Transport Act 1998, ss 52A(1)(a)(ii), 52A(5), 52A(6) and 114(2): maximum penalty $10,000 fine.
11 Sentencing Act 2002, s 70A(a): maximum penalty 6 months’ imprisonment or fine not exceeding
$1,500.
[2] Mr Ashby appeals on the narrow basis that the Judge erred in failing to apply a discount for the personal factors identified in a s 27 cultural report.
The offending
29 March 2020 offending
[3] On 29 March 2020, Mr Ashby, his partner of two and a half years (the victim) and Mr Ashby’s three children were at their home address in Palmerston North. Mr Ashby located the victim’s diary and became angry when he found she had been writing things about him. He ripped pages from the diary and set them on fire and yelled at the victim. Mr Ashby charged down the hallway towards the victim and jabbed her in the face with his right fist, yelling, “Should I just kick your head in?” Mr Ashby took the victim’s cell phone and started questioning her about what he found on the phone. He then threw her cell phone into a door, causing it to smash. The victim stood up but Mr Ashby pushed her onto a bed and into the wall, causing damage to the wall. The victim ran to a neighbour’s address for safety, but Mr Ashby chased her and attempted to run into the neighbour’s address. The occupant of the address told Mr Ashby to leave, which he did.
5 May 2020 offending
[4] On 5 May 2020, Mr Ashby was at the victim’s address in Palmerston North. He and the victim became engaged in a verbal argument after the victim told him to leave. This enraged Mr Ashby and he smashed three mobile phones belonging to the victim against the bedroom wall. Mr Ashby then approached the victim and punched her in the right eye, with a closed fist. Due to the force of the punch, the victim staggered backwards.
[5] Mr Ashby then produced a knife and verbally threatened the victim. After a short time, Mr Ashby put the knife away. At this point, he had thrown the victim to the ground, causing her to land face down. Mr Ashby climbed on top of the victim to prevent her from moving. He laid over her and wrapped an arm around her neck area, causing her to choke momentarily. The victim suffered bruising to her right eye and had ongoing pain in her throat from her jaw to her collar bone.
10 July 2020 offending
[6] On 10 July 2020, Mr Ashby drove onto the forecourt of the Caltex Service Station on Fitzherbert Avenue, Palmerston North. He proceeded to fill his vehicle with
$73.49 worth of petrol. Mr Ashby told an attendant that his partner was on her way to pay as he had forgotten his wallet. When the attendant was distracted, Mr Ashby drove away without making any attempt to pay for the fuel.
24 July 2020 offending
[7] On 24 July 2020, Mr Ashby drove onto the forecourt of the Caltex Service Station on Main Street, Palmerston North. He proceeded to fill his vehicle with $83.60 worth of petrol. Mr Ashby then drove away without paying for the fuel.
20 August 2020 offending
[8] On 20 August 2020, Mr Ashby and the victim were making their way back to Palmerston North after visiting family in Tolaga Bay. The victim was driving her vehicle and Mr Ashby was in the front passenger seat. As they approached Wairoa, the victim began talking about ending the relationship. Mr Ashby became upset and began speaking threateningly. While travelling through road works north of Wairoa, Mr Ashby said, “I might as well kill us both then” and began pulling on the steering wheel with the intention of causing the vehicle to crash. The victim managed to control the vehicle and prevent it from crashing.
[9] Upon entering Wairoa, Mr Ashby said he wanted to kill a Mongrel Mob gang member and asked the victim to drive down Marine Parade. Mr Ashby located someone he believed was a Mongrel Mob gang member and directed the victim to pull over. The victim became upset and began crying, fearing Mr Ashby was about to kill someone. Mr Ashby got into the driver seat and drove the victim back up Marine Parade. He then produced a large butcher’s knife and began stabbing the front dashboard of the vehicle. Fearing for her safety, the victim asked him to pull into a service station so she could go to the toilet. From there, she contacted police.
[10] Police arrived and spoke to Mr Ashby. When asked to produce his licence, he said that it was with his partner. When asked for his details, he provided his name as “Allen Ashby” and said that he lived at an address in Nūhaka. Police were unable to confirm these details, and Mr Ashby immediately drove away from the service station at speed. He headed south then turned around and drove back, where he was spotted by police. Mr Ashby’s vehicle was located a short time later in a driveway, in an attempt to hide from police. Police attempted to block the vehicle in the driveway. Mr Ashby immediately drove onto the footpath at speed to avoid the police vehicle, and into the incorrect lane. Police initiated pursuit. Mr Ashby drove directly towards an ambulance, narrowly avoiding a collision, before driving back into the correct lane. He turned back onto the service station forecourt, and drove in a circle through the pumps. He drove off at speed, and then into the incorrect lane heading towards oncoming traffic. At a roundabout, Mr Ashby again entered into the incorrect lane. At the time there was a moderate volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, with many pedestrians walking on footpaths in close proximity. Due to the increasing risk to public safety, police abandoned the pursuit.
[11] Mr Ashby then turned and drove south, back to the service station in an attempt to uplift the victim. Police were still present when he arrived. Mr Ashby drove, at speed, directly towards the stationary police vehicles on the forecourt, before driving around them and out. Police made a second attempt to stop the vehicle, but Mr Ashby failed to stop. Police re-engaged in the pursuit. Mr Ashby again drove into the incorrect lane, and at speed. The pursuit was again abandoned.
[12] A police vehicle then observed Mr Ashby’s vehicle travelling at speed, showing no intention of slowing for an intersection. The police vehicle slowed, to avoid a collision, and Mr Ashby attempted to turn. Due to his speed, he had to cross the centreline into the path of oncoming traffic. He proceeded to travel along State Highway 2 at excessive speed, towards Gisborne. Police did not attempt to stop his vehicle due to his manner of driving, and sight of the vehicle was lost. Throughout the pursuit, Mr Ashby reached speeds in excess of 110km/h in a predominantly 50km/h speed zone.
[13] Mr Ashby’s vehicle was next observed by police, approximately 10 minutes later, travelling in a line of traffic through Mōrere. Due to the circumstances, police did not attempt to stop the vehicle. As Mr Ashby’s vehicle approached Manutuke, some 84 kilometres from Wairoa, it was observed by police travelling at excessive speed. A police vehicle travelling south through Manutuke observed Mr Ashby’s vehicle in the distance. Mr Ashby crossed the centreline, onto the wrong side of the road, and drove directly towards the police vehicle at speeds in excess of 150km/h. The police officer had to take emergency evasive action to avoid a collision.
[14] Mr Ashby continued travelling north and again crossed the centreline into the path of a south-bound truck and trailer unit. He pulled back into the correct lane seconds before impacting head-on with the truck. Mr Ashby then executed a dangerous U-turn in the middle of the road and began travelling south, at speed, on the wrong side of the road. He continued south at speed and once again crossed the centreline, accelerating into the path of the same police vehicle. The driver had to swerve into a nearby driveway to avoid a head-on crash with Mr Ashby’s vehicle by the narrowest of margins. At that point, police initiated another pursuit with Mr Ashby. The manner of his driving became more reckless and, once again, the pursuit was abandoned.
[15] Mr Ashby evaded police and sight of his vehicle was lost. It was observed again a short time later, re-joining State Highway 2 and travelling north towards Gisborne. At this point, a police dog handler in a vehicle observed Mr Ashby’s vehicle travelling towards him. Mr Ashby then crossed the centreline, deliberately into the path of the dog handler’s vehicle and another police vehicle travelling behind, which were both forced to pull onto the grass verge to get out of Mr Ashby’s path. Mr Ashby then changed his direction of travel, sped up, and continued to drive directly towards the dog handler’s vehicle. At this point, the dog handler was forced to take evasive action by driving into a nearby vehicle entrance, seconds before he would have been hit head-on by Mr Ashby.
[16] Mr Ashby continued travelling at excessive speed towards Gisborne, before coming to a stop on the side of the State Highway a short distance away. The duration of the pursuit covered a distance of approximately 85 kilometres, reaching speeds in
excess of 150km/h. Mr Ashby ran from the vehicle and hid in nearby vegetation before being located by police. A subsequent search of Mr Ashby’s vehicle located a butcher’s knife in the passenger’s footwell.
District Court decision
[17] The Judge referred to the cultural report in two parts of his sentencing. Before I summarise his observations on that report, I set out his conclusions on the offending.
[18] In relation to the 29 March 2020 offending and the charges of assault on a family member and intentional (wilful) damage, the Judge highlighted that there had been four previous incidents of family violence between Mr Ashby and the victim. In relation to the 5 May 2020 offending, the Judge emphasised that the victim was the same person, and that Mr Ashby’s offending demonstrates a tendency to try to control the victim, particularly when he assaulted her by damaging her means of communication.
[19] In relation to the 20 August 2020 charges, the Judge noted that the police had to abandon their pursuit due to Mr Ashby’s dangerous driving, in proximity to other motorists and pedestrians. The Judge said there were other examples of extreme behaviour by Mr Ashby putting other people at risk, for example when he deliberately lined up police vehicles, forcing their drivers onto the grass verge to get out of the way.
[20] The Judge adopted starting points of 12 months’ imprisonment for each of the 29 March and 5 May 2020 assault offending, which he considered to be serious, resulting in a sentence of two years’ imprisonment for those charges. The Judge noted the 20 August matters involved intimidatory behaviour towards the victim of a less serious kind, but also possession of an offensive weapon and terrible driving over a substantial distance. The Judge set the starting point for those matters at 18 months’ imprisonment, taking the sentence to three and a half years’ imprisonment. For the thefts and the driving while disqualified charges, the Judge increased the starting point to four years’ imprisonment.
[21] The Judge then noted that he needed to assess the totality of the offending, noting that he was dealing with groups of very serious offences, but that the offences were disconnected in time and circumstance. The Judge concluded that an appropriate starting point for all the offending was three and a half years’ imprisonment.
[22] The Judge did not increase that starting point because of Mr Ashby’s criminal history even though he had earlier noted Mr Ashby’s many previous convictions for traffic offending and some sentence breaches, as well as his previous convictions for shoplifting in 2015, common assault in 2015, burglary in 2012, and assault with intent to injure in 2010.
[23] Turning to mitigation, the Judge allowed a reduction to two years’ and nine months’ imprisonment, which is just over 20 per cent, on account of a guilty plea.
[24] In relation to the cultural report, the Judge referred to this as one of the significant documents he had had access to, and said the report was helpful as it went through Mr Ashby’s background and personal circumstances and included a lot of commentary about Mr Ashby’s view of his situation. The Judge said that important factors coming out of the report were that anger problems in Mr Ashby’s life go back a long way and this was reported by family members.
[25] The Judge said he had read about [withheld] that Mr Ashby had made attempts at attending anger management courses, so the Judge hoped to some extent that Mr Ashby had an insight into what had gone wrong in life. The Judge noted that he was told the last anger management course was in Gisborne four years ago. The Judge noted the report writer said Mr Ashby was diagnosed with a brain aneurysm a couple of years ago while he was living in Marton. The report writer said this was part of the reason for his offending. The Judge said he noted this but that he did not have a medical opinion confirming that.
[26] The Judge noted the report writer’s comment that one of the motivators Mr Ashby reported was the risk or threat of losing access to his children. The Judge said he hoped that weighs on Mr Ashby’s mind because to be a good father he could not behave in this way, particularly towards the women in his life.
[27]Returning to the cultural report in relation to mitigation, the Judge said:
[19] … That report helps explain your personal background and that may well help explain the offending. What is important is long-standing issues with violence. I am pleased to see that you have attempted anger management courses in the past but, of course, you are back in trouble again for significant violence against your partner. The report writer also emphasises a claim of remorse.
[20] I am unable to discount the sentence any further because of factors in the cultural report. While the report is helpful and possibly identifies reasons behind the offending, other purposes and principles of sentencing remain important here. I must denounce your offending. I must hold you accountable and protection of the community is critical here. You must take personal responsibility for your offending. To be blunt Mr Ashby the offending against your former partner was sustained, violent, overbearing, controlling and bullying. The need to denounce that behaviour and to hold you accountable are in my judgement leading drivers of sentence.
[28] The Judge thanked Mr Ashby for the letters he had written but noted the pre-sentence report writer’s comment that Mr Ashby minimised his offending. The Judge did not find Mr Ashby’s apologies compelling.
[29] Finally, the Judge determined the sentence charge by charge, involving a combination of concurrent and cumulative sentences resulting in the overall sentence of two years and nine months’ imprisonment.12
Approach on appeal
[30] To succeed on an appeal against sentence, the appellant must satisfy the appeal Court that there has been an error in the imposition of the sentence and that a different sentence should be imposed.13 The Court will not, ordinarily, intervene when the sentence is within the range that can be properly justified by accepted sentencing principles. The Court will only intervene and substitute its own view if the sentence is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.14 The appeal Court’s focus is on the
12 Together with the concurrent sentences on other charges, the Judge’s cumulative sentences were: 10 months’ imprisonment on the charge of assault on a family member on 29 March 2020 (CRN 20054001413); 10 months’ imprisonment on the charge of assault on a family member on 5 May 2020 (CRN 20016002329); and 13 months’ imprisonment on the charge of possession of an offensive weapon on 20 August 2020 (CRN 20016002351).
13 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 250(2).
14 Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482 at [36].
final sentence imposed rather than its component parts or how the ultimate sentence was reached.15
Discussion
[31] It is common ground, and I agree, that the Judge’s starting points, totality assessment, adjusted starting point of three and a half years’ imprisonment and reduction of 20 per cent for Mr Ashby’s guilty plea were all within range. The issue on appeal is whether the Judge erred in failing to provide a discount for the personal mitigating factors referred to in the s 27 cultural report, leading to a manifestly excessive end sentence.
[32] [Withheld.]
[33] Mr Parsons submitted there was a strong causal connection between Mr Ashby’s offending and his anger issues[withheld]. Mr Parsons submitted this makes s 27(1)(b) of the Sentencing Act 2002 (the Act) starkly relevant to the sentence outcome.
[34] Mr Parsons submitted the relevant causal connection was identified in the Judge’s sentencing notes, but not evaluated or applied. He relied on Solicitor General v Heta, where Whata J said:16
The extent to which this s 27 information engages the purposes and principles of the Act is then an evaluative matter and applied, where relevant, in accordance with the sentencing framework.
[35] Mr Parsons submitted that the Judge’s failure to evaluate the causal connection was in error. Had the connection been evaluated, a different sentence would have been imposed. He submitted this engages the principles in ss 8(h) and (i) and one of the key purposes of sentencing in s 7(1)(h) of the Act, being:
(a)the offender’s particular circumstances making the sentence disproportionately severe: s 8(h);
15 Ripia v R [2011] NZCA 101 at [15].
16 Solicitor-General v Heta [2018] NZHC 2453, [2019] 2 NZLR 241 at [38]. See also HM v R [2019] NZHC 121 at [30].
(b)the offender’s background when imposing a rehabilitative sentence: s 8(i);
(c)the purpose of assisting in the offender’s rehabilitation and reintegration: s 7(1)(h).
[36] Mr Parsons noted that if a 30 per cent discount had been applied for the information in the s 27 report and addendum, a sentence of home detention would have been within range.
[37] Ms Pairman, for the respondent, submitted that the Judge was entitled not to apply a discount for personal factors and no error was made. Accepting that the Judge acknowledged the cultural report may provide reasons for the offending, she submitted the Judge considered there were countervailing purposes and principles which were engaged by the offending, which meant he felt he could not give a discount. She submitted that, in any event, when stepping back and looking at the totality of the offending, a 30 per cent discount would not be warranted and the end sentence is not manifestly excessive.
[38] I approach the issue in two stages. First, the nexus between Mr Ashby’s background and the offending, and secondly, consideration of the relevant sentencing purposes and principles. Difficulties arise at both stages where abuse (or another mitigating background factor) is self-reported only in the sentencing process. As Mr Parsons noted, the cultural report was only available to the parties and the Judge the day before sentencing.
[39] The first stage calls for factual assessment as to the extent and effect of the abuse. As the Court of Appeal said in Zhang v R (in relation to addiction), a discount should be based on persuasive evidence, as opposed to mere self-reporting.17 The onus of proof (to the civil standard) lies on the offender to establish the extent and effect of abuse.
17 Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507, [2019] 3 NZLR 648 at [148].
[40] The second stage, weighing sentencing purposes and principles, may well involve consideration of rehabilitation prospects and a pathway to rehabilitation having regard to the effect of abuse (or other mitigating background factor). In cases where disclosure has only just occurred, such a pathway may not be well formed. A cultural report is inherently looking at background factors. It is not a forward- looking report. Nor is it a psychological report. Here, there was no real time to address [withheld] and consider a course of action. I am not saying this sentencing should have been adjourned, but note that in Zhang the Court of Appeal encouraged counsel and sentencing judges to make greater use of s 25 of the Act to adjourn sentencing where possible in cases where independent evidence suggests the offending was caused by the factor(s) which a proposed programme or course of action is designed to target.18 Again, self-reporting as to the causes of the offending will generally not be sufficient.
Mr Ashby’s background
[41] I have already referred to the addendum to the cultural report in the context of Mr Parsons’ submissions. More generally, the cultural report explains that Mr Ashby is of Māori descent – Ngāti Kahungunu and Ngāpuhi – and has a very tight knit whānau. He has had anger issues since childhood, which his mother believes were caused by his father being absent for work. [Withheld.] This caused significant difficulty and disruption to him and his education. He did not attend high school but was sent to Akina in Hastings where difficult students were sent to undertake courses.
[42] I accept that Mr Ashby’s childhood was one involving significant deprivation. As the Judge said, Mr Ashby’s personal background “may well help explain the offending”. The Judge also acknowledged the cultural report “possibly identifies reasons behind the offending”. [Withheld.]
[43] In any event, I consider that Mr Ashby’s significant childhood deprivation [withheld] does have a demonstrable nexus with his offending given his anger issues. As Mr Parsons submitted, the offending exhibits fight or flight behaviour. [Withheld.] The respondent acknowledged a stronger nexus in relation to Mr Ashby’s violent
18 At [179]-[180].
offending and I consider there was also a nexus with his related driving offending. I do not see a nexus in relation to his dishonesty offending but that offending was relatively minor.
Balancing sentencing purposes and principles
[44] As indicated, while acknowledging Mr Ashby’s personal background, the Judge declined to give Mr Ashby a discount given other purposes and principles of sentencing – in particular, the need to denounce his offending, hold him accountable and protect the community.
[45] It is common ground that the factors raised by s 27 reports are to be assessed against the purposes and principles of the Act.19 The Judge was right to consider them. The issue is the balancing of those purposes and principles in this case.
[46] As the Court of Appeal recently observed in Poi v R, deprivation may reduce an offender’s moral culpability for the offending, impacting upon the application of several purposes and principles of sentencing, such as holding the offender accountable, denunciation, general and specific deterrence, community protection and the need for rehabilitation.20
[47] On the other hand, the Court of Appeal has also said that sentencing for some offences may be dominated by considerations such as denunciation, victim impact and community protection, reducing and perhaps eliminating any discount for culpability on social grounds.21
[48] Almost everything turns on the facts of the particular case. [Withheld] there was a demonstrable nexus between Mr Ashby’s upbringing and his offending. That nexus somewhat reduces Mr Ashby’s moral culpability.
[49] I also acknowledge the importance of denunciation of Mr Ashby’s violence and dangerous driving and the need to hold him accountable for that.
19 Solicitor-General v Heta [2018] NZHC 2453, [2019] 2 NZLR 241 at [38] and [39].
20 Poi v R [2020] NZCA 312 at [24]-[27].
21 Arona v R [2018] NZCA 427 at [61], citing Heta at [57].
[50] In relation to rehabilitation, I acknowledge that Mr Ashby has undertaken anger management courses, most recently four years ago, which have been ineffective at least in relation to this offending. But that might suggest these courses have not uncovered the underlying cause of his anger. [Withheld.] The report also acknowledged Mr Ashby’s gang life and said that since being in jail he has decided to give it up due to the threat of losing his partner and children and because the gang was not there for him. His partner attended the hearing of the appeal and provided an updated victim impact statement indicating she would be supportive of Mr Ashby if/when he is released from prison. She said she wonders if he has learned the ability to regulate his emotions and self-control better when conflict situations arise. She has no concerns for her own safety or that of her children. I acknowledge her important updated contribution but exercise care with it.
[51] Taking all these matters into account in the context of the moderately serious offending in this case, I consider that the other sentencing purposes rightly referred to by the Judge reduced but did not eliminate the need for a discount for personal mitigating circumstances. Mr Ashby’s somewhat reduced moral culpability and the importance of assisting his rehabilitation warranted a discount. However, I accept Ms Pairman’s submission that a 30 per cent discount is not warranted, [withheld].
[52] In all the circumstances, I consider a discount of 10 to 15 per cent would have been appropriate, in addition to the 20 per cent guilty plea discount, such that the end sentence is manifestly excessive. Adopting the two-stage approach in Moses v R,22 I consider a total discount of 35 per cent is appropriate, resulting in an overall end sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment.
Result
[53]The appeal against sentence is allowed.
[54] I set aside the cumulative sentences, and substitute them with new sentences, cumulative in the same respects, as follows:
22 Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296.
(a)on the charge of assault on a family member on 29 March 2020,23 the sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment is set aside. A sentence of eight months’ imprisonment is substituted;
(b)on the charge of assault on a family member on 5 May 2020,24 the sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment is set aside. A sentence of eight months’ imprisonment is substituted;
(c)on the charge of possession of an offensive weapon on 20 August 2020,25 the sentence of 13 months’ imprisonment is set aside. A sentence of 11 months’ imprisonment is substituted.
[55]All other sentences are unchanged.26
Gault J
23 CRN 20054001413.
24 CRN 20016002329.
25 CRN 20016002351.
26 I note the warrant of commitment for the sentence of imprisonment relating to the reckless driving charge CRN 20016002358, for a period of two years’ imprisonment, does not appear to reflect the Judge’s sentencing notes, which refer to a sentence of 2 months’ imprisonment for the reckless driving charges relating to the East Coast incident. However, as this is a concurrent sentence, it does not affect the result of this appeal.
6
0