Beck v Police - [2021] NZHC 2221

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2021-409-000058

[2021] NZHC 2221

BETWEEN
GRANT JOHN BECK

Plaintiff

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Defendant

Hearing: 27 August 2021

Appearances:

K E Booker for Appellant

J H Whitcombe for Respondent

Judgment:

31 August 2021

JUDGMENT OF DOOGUE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 31 August 2021 at 2.30 pm.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

BECK v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 2221 [31 August 2021]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Mr Grant Beck, was sentenced1 by Judge Garland to 18 months’ imprisonment on two charges of driving with excess breath alcohol third or subsequent2 and one charge of driving at a speed dangerous to the public.3 The Judge disqualified Mr Beck from driving for a year and a day and imposed an alcohol interlock sentence.

[2] Mr Beck appeals that sentence on the basis that the Judge erred by adopting a starting point that was too high, failing to provide appropriate discounts to reflect Mr Beck’s personal mitigating factors and declining to commute the end sentence to one of home detention.

Background facts

[3] Mr Beck was stopped at a police checkpoint on 2 July 2020 and subjected to an evidential breath test. He gave a positive result of 736 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. He stated he had drunk five to six stubbies of beer.

[4] Mr Beck pleaded guilty to a charge of driving with excess breath alcohol third or subsequent and was remanded on bail pending sentencing on 15 January 2021.

[5] On 6 February 2021 at 4.30 pm, while on bail, Mr Beck drove his late model Jaguar vehicle down State Highway 75 between Gold Links Drive and Tancreds Road at a steady 200 km/hr. Road conditions were dry with clear visibility and there were a number of other road users.

[6] State Highway 75 between Gold Links Drive and Tancreds Road is a straight two lane stretch of road governed by a 100 km/hr speed limit that bisects a semi- rural/residential area. There are numerous driveways, the majority of which are either obscured or made invisible by overhanging trees and plant growth, that provide access

1      Police v Beck [2021] NZDC 5727.
2      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 56(1) and 56(4); maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.
3      Land Transport Act, s 35(1)(b); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.

to the stretch of road for residential property and business owners in the area. Advisory signs alerting traffic to side roads giving access to sports clubs are also present.

[7] As Mr Beck sped down the road he was detected by a police officer in a stationary highway patrol vehicle. Police indicated Mr Beck should stop with lights and siren and after a distance he complied. He underwent roadside breath testing which produced a result of 747 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath.

District Court decision

[8] Judge Garland considered the leading authorities on drink-driving4 and the more recent High…

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 Beck v Police

Details

AGLC: Beck v Police [2021] NZHC 2221
Case: [2021] NZHC 2221
Decision Date: 31 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Beck v Police involves an appeal by the plaintiff, Grant Beck, against his sentence imposed by Judge Garland. Beck was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment for two charges of driving with excess breath alcohol and one charge of driving at a speed dangerous to the public. The primary legal issues in this appeal were whether the starting point for the sentence was too high, if the judge failed to provide appropriate discounts for personal mitigating factors, and whether the sentence should have been commuted to one of home detention. The High Court assessed these issues, considering the principles of sentencing, the mitigating and aggravating factors, and the precedents provided by the parties.

The Court found that the starting point of 24 months’ imprisonment was appropriate, given the seriousness of the aggravating factors present in the case. These factors included the high level of intoxication, dangerous driving, and the proximity of the current offences to previous drink-driving convictions. The Court also determined that the judge did not err in not providing discounts for personal mitigating factors, as the evidence presented was ambiguous and self-serving. Finally, the Court concluded that the judge did not err in declining to commute the sentence of imprisonment to one of home detention, as the purposes of denunciation and deterrence could not be achieved by any less restrictive sentence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The Court's decision reinforces the importance of considering the totality of the offending and the individual circumstances of the offender when determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders