Davis v Police - [2014] NZHC 2191

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2014-488-27 [2014] NZHC 2191

BETWEEN
KARAMEA DAVIS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 10 September 2014

Appearances:

Appellant in person
MB Smith for Respondent

Judgment:

10 September 2014

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 September 2014 at 12 noon pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Marsden Woods Inskip & Smith (Whangarei) for Respondent

Copy to: Appellant in person

DAVIS v POLICE [2014] NZHC 2191 [10 September 2014]

Introduction

[1] On 12 October 2013 at about 10:30 pm, Mr Davis was driving a motor vehicle on State Highway 1 near Moerewa. He was pulled over by Police at a roadside checkpoint and exhibited signs of recent alcohol intake. Mr Davis refused to go with the Police for an evidential breath test and was arrested. He was taken to the Kerikeri Police Station where he again refused to undergo an evidential breath test and refused to have a blood specimen taken.

[2] On 24 July 2014, Mr Davis came before Judge Duncan G Harvey in the District Court at Kaikohe having pleaded guilty to one charge of refusing to supply a blood specimen, having been convicted on at least two previous occasions of specified offences under the Land Transport Act 1998. The maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment and the Court must disqualify the driver for more than
12 months.

[3] The previous offending by Mr Davis is historical. In 1987, he refused an officer’s request for a blood specimen; in 1994, he was convicted of driving with excess breath alcohol; and in 2002, in a scenario which was repeated in 2013, he refused a request for blood and refused a request to accompany an officer.

[4] Judge Harvey accepted that, against this background, imprisonment could be contemplated. However, having regard to the purposes and principles of sentencing, he thought that would be too restrictive. His Honour decided that imprisonment would not be appropriate. He looked at the sentencing hierarchy and decided community detention was the appropriate penalty. The Judge expressed the view that community work is not appropriate for offending of this sort:

The Court has to make itself very clear not just to you, but to everybody else in the community that it is simply unacceptable to take a risk with other peoples’ lives. That is what you do when you drink and then drive.

[5] The final sentence was:

Community detention – 3 months

Supervision – 12 months

Disqualification from driving – 15 months

[6] Mr Davis represents himself. In his written submissions, he asks for the sentence of community detention to be removed, the sentence of supervision to be either removed or reduced to six months, and for the disqualification from driving to be reduced to a period of less than a year. He does not, in his written submissions, say why.

[7] Today, before me, Mr Davis first applied for only his submissions to be heard because…

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 Davis v Police

Details

AGLC: Davis v Police [2014] NZHC 2191
Case: [2014] NZHC 2191
Decision Date: 10 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand heard an appeal from Karamea Davis against a sentence imposed by the District Court at Kaikohe. Davis was convicted of refusing to supply a blood specimen after being pulled over by police while driving. This conviction followed previous instances of similar offending under the Land Transport Act 1998. Davis appealed against his sentence of three months’ community detention, 12 months’ supervision, and 15 months’ disqualification from driving, arguing it was excessive. The court considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and outside the range available to the sentencing judge.

The court examined whether the sentence was within the range available to the sentencing judge. The court noted that Davis had a history of drink driving offences, and the sentence imposed was consistent with the legal principles governing such cases. The court found that the sentence of three months’ community detention was within the range available and could have been higher. The 12 months’ supervision and the 15 months’ disqualification from driving were also deemed appropriate, considering Davis’s criminal history. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentence imposed by the District Court was within the appropriate range for Davis’s history of drink driving offences. The court concluded that the sentence of three months’ community detention, 12 months’ supervision, and 15 months’ disqualification from driving was not manifestly excessive and therefore upheld the original sentence.

Orders