Dobbs v Police - [2013] NZHC 3397

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CRI 2013-441-000034 [2013] NZHC 3397

MICHAEL DOBBS Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 16 December 2013

Counsel: E Forster for Appellant
J D Lucas for Respondent

Judgment: 16 December 2013

JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J

Introduction

[1] On 31 October 2013 Mr Dobbs was sentenced to 13 months’ imprisonment on charges of drink driving (12 months’) and driving while disqualified (one month’

cumulative).1

He appeals on the basis that the starting point was too high and

insufficient credit was given for mitigating factors.

Facts

[2] Mr Dobbs is now 46 years old. From the ages of 17 to 26 he was convicted of numerous offences. Relevant to the present appeal are two convictions for drink driving (breath readings of 600 mg and 987 mg). There was also a conviction for
refusing to give a blood specimen.

1 Police v Hobbs DC Hastings CRI 2013-020-002077, 31 October 2013, Judge Watson.

[3] Subsequent to 1993, Mr Dobbs was convicted of no further offending for 18 years. However, since 19 June 2011 he has committed three drink driving offences. The first was committed on 9 June 2011 when Mr Dobbs had a breath reading of
575 mg. Then on 15 January 2013 he drove with a breath reading of 543 mg. Of considerable significance, that 2013 offending was dealt with by the Court on
5 June 2013, at which time Mr Dobbs was given 100 hours community work, six months’ supervision, and disqualified for a year and a day.

[4] The present offending was committed one month after that sentencing, on

11 July 2013. It was, in every respect, his most serious incident. Disqualified only one month earlier, Mr Dobbs was so drunk he eventually ran off the road and into a power pole. As the sentencing Judge noted, the community can be thankful no one was hurt or killed. Mr Dobbs’ blood alcohol reading was 324 mg. The legal limit is
80.

Sentencing

[5] The Judge noted the obvious aggravating factors. In terms of a starting point, Judge Watson took 16 months for the drink driving, and added two for the disqualified driving. He then gave a 25 per cent discount leaving a final sentence of
13 months. Consistent with the starting point approach, the Judge divided these into

12 months’ imprisonment for drink driving and one month cumulative for driving while disqualified.

Decision

[6] Mr Forster submits that the 16 month starting point is too high for this drink driving offence and that this was exacerbated by separately adding two months for the disqualified driving component. It is suggested that had the Judge first analysed
the appropriate starting point for the offending itself, as required by Taueki, a lower

outcome would have resulted.2

More generally it is submitted there is insufficient

recognition that three of the six offences occurred so long ago, and that there has been undue emphasis on the number six without regard to the actual circumstances.

2

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 Dobbs v Police

Details

AGLC: Dobbs v Police [2013] NZHC 3397
Case: [2013] NZHC 3397
Decision Date: 16 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Dobbs v Police was heard and determined by Simon France J. Michael Dobbs, the appellant, appealed against his sentencing for drink driving and driving while disqualified. The sentencing, which resulted in a 13-month imprisonment, was deemed by Dobbs to be too severe, arguing that insufficient credit was given to mitigating factors.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the starting point for sentencing was too high and whether adequate consideration was given to mitigating factors such as the age of previous offences and Dobbs' remorse. The court had to evaluate the sentencing approach taken by the original judge and determine whether it was appropriate and in line with precedents.

Simon France J assessed the starting point for the sentence, noting that the original judge had taken into account the severity of the offences, the high level of alcohol in Dobbs' system, and the recency of previous sentencing. The court considered that an 18-month starting point was justified given the circumstances. The judge also found that while there were mitigating factors, they did not warrant a significant reduction in the sentence. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, affirming the original sentence.

In conclusion, the court upheld the original sentence and dismissed the appeal, finding that the starting point for sentencing was appropriate and that the mitigating factors did not warrant a substantial reduction in the sentence.

Orders