Deighton v Police - [2025] NZHC 1598

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2025-488-36

[2025] NZHC 1598

BETWEEN
ROBERT DEIGHTON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 9 June 2025

Appearances:

T K Donald for the Appellant P Hamber for the Respondent

Judgment:

16 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF ROBINSON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 16 June 2025 at 2:30 pm

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
TK Donald, Whangārei MWIS, Whangārei

DEIGHTON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 1598 [10 June 2025]

Introduction

[1] Mr Robert Deighton pleaded guilty and has been convicted of one charge of driving with excess blood alcohol on a third or subsequent occasion.1 On 20 February 2025 he was sentenced in the District Court at Whangārei to five months’ home detention and ordered to pay $215.34 in reparations to the Police. He was also disqualified from driving for five years, with any subsequent license to be a zero-alcohol license.2

[2] Mr Deighton appeals on the basis that the disqualification period is manifestly excessive. He does not appeal the sentence of home detention or the reparation order.

The offending

[3] Mr Deighton is 78 years old. He has eight previous convictions for driving with excess blood alcohol content and two for refusing an officer’s request for blood specimen. There are convictions for other historic minor offences dating back to the 1960s.

[4]Mr Deighton’s most recent drink-driving convictions were on:

(a)20 May 2020: when he drove with 459 mg / 100 mL of blood. Mr Deighton was sentenced to five months’ community service. He was not disqualified from driving because special conditions applied.

(b)5 September 2009: when he drove with 594 mg / 100 mL of blood (at a time when he was disqualified from driving). Mr Deighton was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment and disqualified from driving for one year and one month.

(c)1 January 2009: when he drove with 481 mg / 100 mL of blood. Mr Deighton was sentenced to three months’ community detention, 80

1 Land Transport Act 1998, ss 56(2) and 56(4). Maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment. One year minimum period of disqualification.
2 Police v Deighton [2025] NZDC 3534.

hours community work and was disqualified from driving for one year and one month.

[5] On 3 August 2024, Mr Deighton was involved in a single vehicle traffic crash in Maungatapere. Blood alcohol procedures were carried out and Mr Deighton’s sample contained 131 mg / 100 mL of blood.

District Court decision

[6]In sentencing Mr Deighton Judge Davis explained:3

This is, for me, all about public safety. You have driven with a very high reading. You have been involved in a single-vehicle accident. I am assuming that to mean you have run off the road in essence, but this is somebody getting killed waiting to happen. It is not good enough to come along to court and say: “I’ve got all these medical ailments.” Tell that to a grieving family whose child, whose husband, whose wife,…

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 Deighton v Police

Details

AGLC: Deighton v Police [2025] NZHC 1598
Case: [2025] NZHC 1598
Decision Date: 16 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Robert Deighton, a 78-year-old with a long history of drink-driving offences, appeals against his sentencing for driving with excess blood alcohol content on a third or subsequent occasion. He was sentenced to five months' home detention, ordered to pay reparations to the Police, and disqualified from driving for five years, with any subsequent license to be a zero-alcohol license. The appeal focuses on the length of the driving disqualification period, which Mr Deighton argues is manifestly excessive. The court was required to determine whether the five-year disqualification period imposed by the District Court was appropriate, considering the statutory sentencing framework, the offender's history, and public safety concerns.

The court considered whether the five-year disqualification period was manifestly excessive, noting Mr Deighton's extensive history of drink-driving offences, including eight previous convictions and a high blood alcohol level on his most recent offence. The court acknowledged the District Court Judge's emphasis on public safety and the need to deter repeat offenders. However, the court also took into account Mr Deighton's age, his ongoing health issues, and the fact that his most recent offence occurred nearly 16 years after his previous one. The court reviewed relevant authorities and previous cases where disqualification periods of around five years were upheld, but found that these cases did not match Mr Deighton's circumstances as closely. The court concluded that while the five-year disqualification was stern, it was not appropriate given the specific mitigating factors in this case.

The High Court agreed with Mr Deighton that the five-year disqualification period was excessive and replaced it with a three-year disqualification period, to take effect from the original date of disqualification. The court authorised Mr Deighton to apply for a zero-alcohol licence at the end of the three-year period. The court emphasised that the primary objective of sentencing in such cases is public safety, but also noted the importance of considering individual circumstances and the effectiveness of the sentence in deterring future offending.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against the five-year disqualification period was allowed. In its place, the court imposed a three-year disqualification period, effective from 20 February 2025, with Mr Deighton authorised to apply for a zero-alcohol licence at the end of that period. The remainder of the sentence, including the home detention and reparation order, remained unchanged.

Orders