Chase v Police

[2017] NZHC 1732

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CRI-2017-441-000020 [2017] NZHC 1732

BETWEEN

MARIA ROSE CHASE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	25 July 2017
Appearances:	D M Kerr on behalf of S Jefferson for the Appellant F M Cleary for the Respondent
Judgment:	25 July 2017

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

Solicitors/Counsel:

S Jefferson, Napier

Crown Solicitor’s Office, Napier

CHASE v NZ POLICE [2017] NZHC 1732 [25 July 2017]

[1]      On 3 May 2017, the appellant, Maria Rose Chase, pleaded guilty to one charge of driving with excess breath alcohol, having been convicted at least twice previously of a similar offence.1    She was convicted and fined $1,000 with court costs of $130.   She was also sentenced to six months supervision, with special conditions that she complete alcohol counselling as directed by a probation officer and attend the One For the Road Programme.   Finally, she was disqualified from holding or obtaining a drivers licence for 18 months.

[2]      She now appeals against the period of disqualification only on the ground that it is manifestly excessive.

[3]      The appeal can be dealt with shortly as the Crown acknowledges that a period of  18  months  disqualification  is  outside  the  available  range  when  compared  to similar cases.  The Crown cites Tindle v Police,2 Stuart v Police,3 McNab v Police,4

and Waihape v Police.5

[4]      The Crown submits:

15.While it has been considered appropriate that longer periods of disqualification can offset leniency offered in other components of a sentence, it is apparent that the upper end of the range is 15 months where there are no aggravating features and where previous convictions are historical.

16.Given  the  other  components  of  the  sentence  imposed  on  the appellant, and her personal circumstances, the minimum period of disqualification (one year and one day) is available and appropriate in this case.  It is submitted that the overall sentence will provide an adequate response to promote public safety and the rehabilitation of the appellant.

[5]      I agree.   There is nothing in the appellant’s personal circumstances which would warrant the imposition of anything other than the mandatory period of disqualification.  The appellant is a 72 year old female from Flaxmere in Hastings. She was breathalysed in a routine police stop around 5.50 pm on 3 April 2017.  The

evidential breath test gave a reading of 504 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath.

1      Land Transport Act 1998, s 56(4).

2      Tingle v Police [2016] NZHC 2093.

3      Stuart v Police [2015] NZHC 2570.

4      McNab v Police [2014] NZHC 1493.

5      Waihape v Police [2012] NZHC 1459.

Although she had three previous convictions for drink-driving, these are historical. The last conviction was entered 26 years ago.

[6]      In light of the Crown’s responsible attitude to this appeal, it is allowed.  The sentence of 18 months disqualification is quashed and in its place I substitute an order for disqualification of Ms Chase from driving for a period of one year and a

day.

Woolford J