Cameron v The King

[2024] NZHC 1877

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2024-425-1

[2024] NZHC 1877

BETWEEN

MYLES FORRESTER CAMERON

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	J A T Ross for Appellant M B Brownlie for Crown
Judgment:	10 July 2024
Reissued:	12 July 2024

JUDGMENT OF EATON J

(appeal against sentence)

This judgment was delivered by me on …….. at ……… pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

CAMERON v R [2024] NZHC 1877 [10 July 2024]

[1]    On 28 November 2023 Mr Cameron pleaded guilty and was convicted on charges of driving while disqualified (third or subsequent)1 and dangerous driving.2 He was remanded on bail for sentencing on 18 January 2024. Sentencing was subsequently adjourned to 22 February 2024.

[2]    On 8 January 2024, he was arrested on a charge of breaching a bail condition prohibiting him from driving a vehicle unless appropriately licenced. He was readmitted to  bail,  but  again  breached  bail  on  the  day  of  his  release.  When  Mr Cameron reappeared before Judge Hix, the Judge sentenced him to 100 hours’ community work and 12 months’ disqualification on the charge of aggravated disqualified driving and to six months’ disqualification (concurrent) on the charge of dangerous driving.

[3]    Mr Cameron’s appeal against that sentence was scheduled to be heard before me on 15 July 2024. On 9 July, Mr Ross, on behalf of Mr Cameron and Mr Brownlie, on behalf of the Crown filed a joint memorandum. That memorandum confirms that the only issue to be raised on appeal is that the Judge should have imposed a community-based sentence on the charge of driving while disqualified (third or subsequent) rather than a disqualification. The memorandum also confirms that the disqualification imposed on the charge of dangerous driving is not challenged.3

[4]    In written submissions Mr Ross sought an order under s 94 of the Land Transport Act 1998. That provision allows the Court to substitute disqualification with a community-based sentence. That application was not pursued before Judge Hix. In that circumstance counsel are agreed that the correct approach is for the appeal to be dismissed and the proceedings remitted to the District Court for a re-hearing consistent with the approach taken by Isaac J in McKenzie v R.4

[5]I agree.

[6]The appeal is dismissed.

1      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 32(1)(a) and 32(4).

2      Land Transport Act, s 35(1)(b).

3      The six-month disqualification period having expired.

4      McKenzie v R [2023] NZHC 2778.

[7]    It will be for the District Court Judge to determine the re-hearing application in the first instance.

...................................................

Eaton J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitors, Invercargill

Counsel:
J A T Ross, Barrister, Invercargill