Cant v Police - [2024] NZHC 1911

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2024-409-000101

[2024] NZHC 1911

BETWEEN
JESSE MAAKA EVAN CANT

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 11 July 2024

Appearances:

B S T Moore for Appellant B W D Alexander for Crown

Judgment:

11 July 2024

ORAL JUDGMENT OF EATON J

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

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

CANT v POLICE [2024] NZHC 1911 [11 July 2024]

Introduction

[1] On 4 April 2024, Jesse Maaka Evan Cant was sentenced to six months’ community detention, 100 hours’ community work, and 15 months’ disqualification from driving1 following his guilty plea to a charge of dangerous driving causing injury.2

[2] Mr Cant appeals that sentence. He says the appropriate sentencing outcome was one of community work, reparation and disqualification. He seeks leave to adduce as fresh evidence on appeal a letter dated 27 June 2024 from his employer, Downer, outlining the impact of the community detention component of his sentence for his employment.

Facts

[3] On 30 June 2023, Mr Cant drove from Tauranga to Invercargill with a friend who was in the front passenger seat. At about 7:35 pm, he was driving on Queens Drive, Invercargill. The street had a speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour. Traffic flow was moderate. The weather was poor, the roads were wet and there were strong winds. Mr Cant was driving in excess of the speed limit at a speed that he estimated to be at around 70 kilometres per hour.

[4] Mr Cant lost control of his vehicle and crossed the centre line. He crashed head-on into an oncoming vehicle. The impact spun the other vehicle around and into a concrete wall. Both vehicles were extensively damaged and the driver of the other vehicle had to be cut free by fire service responders. That driver suffered serious leg injuries, requiring hospitalisation and surgery. A passenger in that other vehicle suffered minor sprains and bruising. Mr Cant and his passenger suffered only minor injuries.

[5] Mr Cant remained at the scene where he attended on the injured victim and was compliant with emergency staff. When spoken to by the police, he said he believed his vehicle had aqua-planed, causing him to lose control.

1 Police v Cant [2024] NZDC 9362 at [14]–[16].
2 Land Transport Act 1998, s 36(1)(b).

Victim impact statements

[6] The victim impact statement of the other driver confirms that as a result of the crash, he broke his right femur and dislocated his right knee. Surgery was required. He was off work and lost a couple of weeks’ wages before ACC commenced. In a second updating statement, he confirms he has since returned to work full-time and has a new job as a forklift driver. He says his injuries have affected his work in that he struggles to get in and out of the truck and lift heavy freight,…

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 Cant v Police

Details

AGLC: Cant v Police [2024] NZHC 1911
Case: [2024] NZHC 1911
Decision Date: 11 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jesse Maaka Evan Cant appeals his sentence for dangerous driving causing injury, which includes six months’ community detention, 100 hours of community work, and 15 months’ disqualification from driving. Cant argues that the appropriate sentence was community work, reparation, and disqualification. He seeks to present a letter from his employer, Downer, as fresh evidence, detailing the potential impact of community detention on his employment. The Crown opposes the appeal and argues that the sentence was appropriate and that the new evidence is neither credible nor fresh. The court admitted the new evidence, considering it could impact the sentence and prevent it from being manifestly excessive.

The court examined the principles governing appeals against sentence, emphasizing that intervention is warranted only if the sentence is manifestly excessive. The court considered the fresh evidence credible and allowed it, as excluding it could result in a manifestly excessive sentence. The court then assessed the sentence, noting the purposes of community detention, which include reducing the risk of further offending, holding the offender accountable, and promoting a sense of responsibility. The court found that while a sentence of community detention was appropriate, the term of six months was manifestly excessive, given the circumstances of the case. The court substituted the sentence with three months’ community detention, maintaining the other aspects of the sentence.

Orders