C v Police HC Christchurch CRI 2008-409-33

[2008] NZHC 2229

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2008-409-33

C

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         14 March 2008

Counsel:         G R Lascelles for Appellant

S Poore for Respondent

Judgment:      14 March 2008 at Oral

ORAL JUDGMENT OF MACKENZIE J

[1]      This is an appeal against sentence, in particular an appeal against the length of disqualification imposed.  The appellant had been sentenced on other matters and is serving a term of imprisonment.   There was another matter that found its way through the court system rather more slowly than the major matters, and that was a minor driving matter of careless use of a motor vehicle.  It came before the District Court on the 31st of January and was dealt with by way of an order for reparation and an order of disqualification for six months.

[2]      That penalty could in no way be considered manifestly excessive.  However, Mr Lascelles for the appellant now submits that the appellant will become eligible

C V NZ POLICE HC CHCH CRI 2008-409-33  14 March 2008

for parole in April and that he has what is not a firm offer of employment, but an employer who clearly is prepared to offer some support to the appellant and has indicated that a job may be available if he were granted parole.  That would however require that he have a driver’s licence.

[3]      It would be feasible to deal with the matter by way of an application for a limited licence if that situation arose.  I do not think that it is necessary to go to those lengths in this case.  The position will have to be considered by the parole board.  If parole is not granted then the issue of the period of disqualification becomes to some extent academic, at least until parole were granted.  The parole board will be in a position to assess the terms on which the appellant would be released and may, to that extent, impose some restrictions on his activities which may limit his driving in any event.  I therefore think that it is unnecessary to go to the full extent of requiring that an application for a limited licence be imposed.

[4]      In all the circumstances, as they are now before me, and I emphasise that they are  different  from  those  which  were  before  the  learned  District  Court  Judge,  I consider that it is appropriate to reduce the period of disqualification to leave open the option of employment when parole is considered.

[5]      In the circumstances, I propose to allow the appeal and reduce the period of disqualification from six months to two months.

“A D MacKenzie J”

Solicitors:         G R Lascelles, Barrister, Christchurch for appellant

Raymond Donnelly & Co., Christchurch for respondent