Candler v Police - [2018] NZHC 1414

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2018-463-000027

[2018] NZHC 1414

BETWEEN
HAYDEN CANDLER

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 12 June 2018

Appearances:

N Dutch for the Appellant

S J P Davison E F Collis for Respondent

Judgment:

14 June 2018

JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie On 14 June 2018 at 10.00am
Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Tauranga N Dutch, Tauranga

CANDLER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZHC 1414 [14 June 2018]

Introduction

[1] On 21 February 2018, the appellant, Hayden Candler, was sentenced in the Tauranga District Court by Judge Ingram to 12 months’ imprisonment on the following charges:1

(a)driving while suspended (third or subsequent) x 2;2

(b)theft;3 and

(c)dishonestly using a document.4

[2] On 21 March 2018, Mr Candler filed a notice of appeal. He alleges that the sentence was manifestly excessive, that the Judge erred in not addressing the pre- sentence report, that the starting point should have been lower, that there should have been a full credit of 25 per cent for the guilty pleas which he entered, and that the Judge was wrong not to grant him an electronically monitored sentence in the community.

[3]The appeal is opposed by the respondent.

Relevant facts

[4] The charges to which Mr Candler pleaded guilty arise out of a number of separate events. I deal with them as follows:

Driving related charges

[5] On 11 July 2017, Mr Candler was suspended from driving for a period of three months for excess demerit points. Notwithstanding this suspension:

1      Police v Candler [2018] NZDC 3119.
2      Land Transport Act 1998, s 32(1)(c). The maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine not exceeding $6,000. The court must also order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for one year or more.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 223(c). The maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.
4      Crimes Act, s 228(1)(b). The maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.

(a)At around 7:10 pm on 2 August 2017, Mr Candler was driving a Toyota surf vehicle on Christopher Street in Tauranga. The police pulled Mr Candler over because the vehicle had false licence plates. Mr Candler said in explanation that he did not know he was suspended from driving.

(b)At around 12:30 pm on 4 October 2017, Mr Candler was driving a Hino light truck on Cameron Road in Tauranga. As a result of police inquiries relating to that vehicle, Mr Candler was spoken to by police at the Tauranga Police Station the following day. Mr Candler admitted to being a suspended driver. He said in explanation that he needed to work to earn a living.

Theft

[6] At around 4:19 pm on 21 December 2017, Mr Calder was inside a retail store in…

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 Candler v Police

Details

AGLC: Candler v Police [2018] NZHC 1414
Case: [2018] NZHC 1414
Decision Date: 14 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hayden Candler appealed his sentence in the High Court, arguing that the 12-month imprisonment sentence imposed by the Tauranga District Court was manifestly excessive. Candler was convicted on four charges: two of driving while suspended, theft, and dishonestly using a document. The District Court judge adopted a starting point of six months' imprisonment for the first driving while suspended charge, and 12 months for the second. Candler received a two-month discount for his guilty pleas on the first charge, and a one-month discount on the other charges, resulting in a concurrent sentence of 12 months' imprisonment. The High Court assessed whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, considering the end sentence and relevant authorities. The court found that the starting point for the driving while suspended charges should have been nine months, and that Candler was entitled to a full 25 per cent discount for his guilty pleas, resulting in a 12-month sentence. However, the court found no error in the District Court's decision to refuse Candler leave to apply for a substituted community sentence.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders