Claver v Police

[2017] NZHC 1976

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

CRI-2017-425-000014

[2017] NZHC 1976

BETWEEN

SIMON NICHOLAS CLAVER

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:	14 August 2017
Appearances:	A S P Tobeck for Appellant D J Orchard for Respondent
Judgment:	18 August 2017

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

Introduction

[1]                  The appellant, Mr Simon Claver, pleaded guilty to three charges of careless driving causing injury. He was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for six months and ordered to pay $800 to each of the victims for emotional harm.1

[2]                  The only issue raised on appeal is whether Judge Couch erred in declining to dispense with the statutory minimum disqualification period under s 81 of the Land Transport Act 1998 (the Act). Section 81 requires the Court to impose the minimum period of disqualification “unless for special reasons relating to the offence it thinks fit to order otherwise”. The appellant says that four points were put forward at sentencing which constituted special reasons relating to the offence, and the Judge did not correctly assess them. As a result, he wrongfully imposed that minimum period of disqualification.

1      Police v Claver [2017] NZDC 8473.

CLAVER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 1976 [18 August 2017]

Background

[3]                  On the evening of 20 July 2016, the appellant was driving  south  on  Deveron Street in Invercargill. The weather at the time was wet and windy. He failed to stop at the red traffic light at the intersection of Deveron and Esk Streets, driving halfway through the intersection and narrowly missing a vehicle travelling on Esk Street. He braked heavily on realising his mistake but struck three female victims walking across Deveron Street on the opposite side of the intersection. One of the victims was thrown onto his windscreen which shattered. All three were bruised and sore after the impact and one of them sustained an injury to her knee. The defendant eventually pleaded guilty to the charges of careless driving causing injury.

District Court Decision

[4]                  At sentencing, the appellant sought to persuade the Judge that there were special reasons which would justify the Court not imposing the minimum period of disqualification. His lawyer advanced the following combination of circumstances as establishing special reasons:

(a)the appellant’s explanation that he looked at the green light at the intersection of Tay and Deveron Streets, one block further south and believes he mistakenly focused on that green light and not the red light at the intersection;

(b)the adverse weather conditions;

(c)a foggy windscreen;

(d)the glare caused by the wet smooth road surface reflecting street lights, other traffic and traffic lights; and

(e)the dark clothing of the victims.

The District Court decision

[5]                  In his decision, the District Court Judge identified the four matters put forward by the appellant as special circumstances and then rejected all of them as constituting, either alone or together, special reasons justifying him not imposing the minimum period of disqualification. His reasoning was as follows:

[9]        I deal with each of…