Collett v Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2016-488-61 [2017] NZHC 1012

BETWEEN
BRYAN WAYNE COLLETT

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

On the papers

Counsel:

M Pecotic for Appellant
JW Wall for Respondent

Judgment:

17 May 2017

JUDGMENT (NO. 2) OF TOOGOOD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 17 May 2017 at 3.00 pm
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Collett v NZ Police [2017] NZHC 1012 [17 May 2017]

[1] On 15 March 2017, I allowed in part an appeal by Bryan Wayne Collett against a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment and an order under s 32(4)(a) of the Land Transport Act 1998 (the LTA) disqualifying Mr Collett from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for a period of 14 months (“the principal judgment”).1
Mr Collett had pleaded guilty to one charge of driving a motor vehicle on a road while his driver's licence was suspended. It was his thirteenth conviction for driving whilst disqualified or suspended.

[2] I agreed with Judge McDonald that the offending merited a sentence of imprisonment but considered that the Judge had erred in his assessment of the appropriate term and reduced the sentence to one of 30 weeks' imprisonment. I was concerned that, following his release on parole, Mr Collett would remain subject to a lengthy order disqualifying him from driving. Because of his particular circumstances, notably his occupation and living in a remote rural area away from public transport, I thought Mr Collett may find the temptation to drive to be too great to resist and that, as well, undue hardship would be suffered by Mr Collett's family if he was unable to drive. I considered that it would be better to clean the slate and give Mr Collett an opportunity to demonstrate that he has reformed.

[3] I adjourned the appeal part-heard on the basis that an application for the substitution of a community-based sentence in lieu of the disqualification might provide a nuanced solution. An application under s 94 of the LTA was filed in due course. I regret and apologise for the delay in responding to the application and counsel’s submissions. The papers have only just been sent to me.

[4] Regrettably, however, I am satisfied that Mr Wall, who appears on behalf of the respondent, is right that because Mr Collett remains subject to a sentence of imprisonment, I am not able to impose a concurrent sentence of community-based sentence during the parole period.2

[5] Having confirmed in the principal judgment that a sentence of imprisonment was appropriate, I am not prepared to revisit that aspect. As much as I may wish to

1 Collett v NZ Police [2017] NZHC 489.
2 Sentencing Act 2002, s 19.

promote Mr Collett's rehabilitation further, I cannot. It is entirely over to him to

comply with the District Court’s order and avoid further sanctions.

[6] It follows, therefore, that the application under s 94 of the LTA cannot succeed and I dismiss it.

[7] I also dismiss the appeal against the sentence of 14 months' disqualification from driving.

...............................................

Toogood J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Collett v Police, the appellant, Bryan Wayne Collett, appealed against a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment and a disqualification order under the Land Transport Act 1998, which barred him from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for 14 months. Collett had pleaded guilty to driving while his licence was suspended, a charge that marked his thirteenth conviction for driving while disqualified or suspended. Initially, the Court of Appeal reduced Collett's sentence to 30 weeks' imprisonment but upheld the disqualification order. The Court considered that Collett's circumstances, including his occupation and the remoteness of his residence, might tempt him to drive and cause undue hardship to his family if he were unable to drive. However, due to Collett's ongoing imprisonment sentence, the Court could not impose a concurrent community-based sentence. Consequently, the appeal against the disqualification order was dismissed.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Collett's ongoing imprisonment sentence precluded the imposition of a concurrent community-based sentence during his parole period. The Court had to balance Collett's need for rehabilitation with the necessity of enforcing the law and ensuring public safety. The Court also needed to determine whether the disqualification order was appropriate given Collett's repeated offending history and the potential consequences of reinstating his driving privileges. Ultimately, the Court had to decide whether to uphold or revise the original sentence and disqualification order.

The Court found that since Collett remained subject to an imprisonment sentence, it could not impose a concurrent community-based sentence. The Court acknowledged the potential for Collett to reoffend if his driving privileges were reinstated but reasoned that such a decision would undermine the original sentencing decision and the principle of finality in sentencing. The Court also considered that Collett's repeated offending history justified the disqualification order, despite the hardships it might cause. The Court concluded that it was not prepared to revisit the original sentencing decision and dismissed the appeal against both the sentence and the disqualification order.

The Court dismissed Collett's appeal against both the 30-week imprisonment sentence and the 14-month disqualification from driving. The Court expressed regret for the delay in responding to the application but maintained that the original sentencing decision was appropriate given Collett's repeated offending history and the need to uphold public safety. The Court emphasized that it was up to Collett to comply with the District Court’s order and avoid further sanctions. The Court's decision underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of the sentencing process and ensuring that repeat offenders face appropriate consequences for their actions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

On the papers
Counsel:	M Pecotic for Appellant JW Wall for Respondent
Judgment:	17 May 2017