Buick v Police - [2024] NZHC 3204

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2024-409-205

[2024] NZHC 3204

BETWEEN
DAVID JEREMIAH EDMOND BUICK

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 30 October 2024

Appearances:

D J Matthews for Appellant M W Fulton for Respondent

Judgment:

31 October 2024

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 31 October 2024 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

BUICK v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 3204 [31 October 2024]

Introduction

[1] David Jeremiah Edmond Buick pleaded guilty to a charge of driving a motor vehicle on a road at a speed which might have been dangerous to the public.1 Judge Callaghan refused to grant a discharge without conviction and sentenced Mr Buick to six months’ disqualification for driving.2 Mr Buick now appeals that decision.

Facts

[2]The District Court summarised the facts of the offending as follows:

[2]The facts in relation to the offence are that on 7 March, at about
6.30 pm, the defendant was driving a Kawasaki 400G motorcycle on the Shands Road on-ramp to the Christchurch Southern Motorway. The ramp is single-lane. It curves as it merges with the dual carriageway, and has a 100K posted speed limit. There was low-to- medium traffic flow. He was travelling at 162 kilometres per hour, which was detected by radar. He was passing a four-wheel drive vehicle travelling at 102 in the left lane, and immediately prior to merging.

[3]When he stopped, he stated no reason for the speed. He had seen the four-wheel drive and replied “No, I don’t”, when asked if he thought merging at such a speed was safe.

District Court decision

[3] The Judge assessed the gravity of the offending to be medium-to-high having regard to the speed of the driving and the consequence risk of fatality. However, taking account of Mr Buick’s lack of previous convictions, his early guilty plea and the fact he has completed the Right Track programme, the Judge reduced that assessment to medium. The consequences of conviction were said to be general, noting Mr Buick would not lose his job is he was disqualified.

[4] Accordingly, the Judge found that the consequences of the offending were not out of proportion to the gravity of the offending. A discharge without conviction was not granted.

1 Land Transport Act 1998, s 35(1)(b) — maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or $4,500.
2 Police v Buick [2024] NZDC 17181.

[5] In consideration of Mr Buick’s rehabilitation, and the steps he had taken to address the underlying cause of ADHD and receipt of treatment for that, the Judge disqualified him from driving for six months, which is the minimum period, and which was backdated to commence on 5 April 2024, meaning Mr Buick only had to serve two and a half months at the time of sentencing.

Principles on appeal

[6] The Court may grant a discharge without conviction under s 106 of the Sentencing…

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 Buick v Police

Details

AGLC: Buick v Police [2024] NZHC 3204
Case: [2024] NZHC 3204
Decision Date: 31 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Buick v New Zealand Police, David Jeremiah Edmond Buick appealed against a decision by Judge Callaghan of the District Court to refuse to grant a discharge without conviction and instead sentence him to six months' disqualification for driving. Buick was caught driving at 162 kilometres per hour on a 100 kilometre per hour speed limit on-ramp. Buick pleaded guilty to driving at a speed which might have been dangerous to the public. Buick argued that the consequences of the conviction, specifically the impact on his future employment, were out of proportion to the gravity of the offence, warranting a discharge without conviction.

The court had to determine whether the consequences of the conviction were out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence, which would allow for a discharge without conviction under the Sentencing Act 2002. Buick submitted that his age, lack of criminal history, his completion of the Right Track programme, and his treatment for ADHD were factors that should be considered when assessing the gravity of the offence and the consequences of the conviction. The court considered whether the potential impact on Buick's future employment in the automotive industry was a consequence that was out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence.

The court found that the gravity of the offence was appropriately assessed as medium-to-high, but was open to considering it low given Buick's mitigating factors. However, the court found that the consequences of the conviction, while they could affect Buick's future employment, were not out of proportion to the gravity of the offence. Buick was university qualified and on track to complete an apprenticeship as an automotive electrician, and his current employer could provide positive references. The court found that any impact on Buick's future employment was speculative and would likely diminish over time due to the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004. Therefore, the court found that the consequences were not out of proportion to the gravity of the offence and dismissed the appeal.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the District Court's decision.

Orders