Catlin v Police - [2017] NZHC 2485

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2017-425-28 [2017] NZHC 2485

BETWEEN
NICHOLAS EDWARD CATLIN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 9 October 2017

Appearances:

L Collins for Appellant
S McKenzie for Respondent

Judgment:

11 October 2017

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

[1] The appellant, Nicholas Catlin, was sentenced to two years and four months imprisonment on one charge of driving with excess breath alcohol causing injury and one charge of failing to ascertain if injury or death had occurred.1 He was also disqualified from driving for five years and ordered to pay reparation in the sum of
$7,500. He has appealed his sentence of imprisonment on the ground it is manifestly excessive.

Background

[2] On the night of the offending, Mr Catlin drank at a pub in Queenstown. Prior to going out that evening, he had already consumed some six to eight bottles of beer. At around 10.00 pm, he left the pub and got into his car. Clearly intoxicated, he sped
and swerved his way up the street, reaching a speed of approximately 74 kilometres

1 Police v Catlin [2017] NZDC 12468.

CATLIN v POLICE [2017] NZHC 2485 [11 October 2017]

per hour in a 50 kilometre per hour zone. He made a sharp turn at speed, braked heavily, and, as a result, careered across the road and onto a footpath, hitting a raised garden edge before continuing on.

[3] In the path of Mr Catlin’s vehicle was the victim who was standing on the footpath with her bicycle, preparing to ride home. She had just put on her helmet. Mr Catlin’s vehicle struck the victim, causing her to be thrown onto its bonnet before both she and her bicycle were propelled some three to four metres into the air. The victim landed approximately 10 metres away in the middle of the road. Mr Catlin drove on for some 100 metres. He then stopped, got out of the car, and was observed smoking a cigarette before decamping into some bushes. He later caught a taxi home, where police found him soon after.

[4] A subsequent blood test showed his alcohol level to be 150 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, which is about twice the legal limit. His blood alcohol level at the time of the collision is not known. The victim suffered a traumatic brain injury, complex facial fractures, injury to her left eye and bruising to her lower body. She spent some two months in hospital, and after discharge continued to have double-vision and memory loss. The long term prognosis of any permanent disability remains unknown.

Sentencing decision

[5] In sentencing Mr Catlin, Judge Farnan identified the salient aggravating features of his offending. These included the extent of the harm to the victim; the level of alcohol in his blood, being almost twice the legal limit; and the fact he was speeding at the time he lost control of his vehicle. The Judge assessed…

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 Catlin v Police

Details

AGLC: Catlin v Police [2017] NZHC 2485
Case: [2017] NZHC 2485
Decision Date: 11 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Catlin v Police, the appellant, Nicholas Catlin, appealed against his sentence of two years and four months imprisonment for driving with excess breath alcohol causing injury and failing to ascertain if injury or death had occurred. The appeal was on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive and that it should be substituted with a lesser term of imprisonment which would allow him to be eligible for home detention. The appeal was dismissed.

The Court considered the appellant's arguments that a starting point of no more than two and a half years imprisonment should have been adopted and that the pre-sentence report had wrongly suggested that the only suitable sentence was one of imprisonment because of the likelihood of the appellant being deported. The Court also considered the argument that the four month uplift for the previous convictions was excessive and constituted a double-punishment. The Court rejected the appellant's arguments and found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The Court noted that the appellant had a history of drink-driving and had caused very serious injury to an innocent victim. The Court also noted that the sentence imposed was comparable to a similar case and that the overall culpability of the two offenders in each of the cases was comparable. The Court held that the sentence imposed was within the range of sentence available in the exercise of the sentencing Court’s discretion.

Orders