IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY
CRI 2013-443-12 [2013] NZHC 1036
NIGEL JOHN DRINKWATER
Appellant
v
NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent
Hearing: 7 May 2013
Counsel: K R Pascoe for Accused
S A Law for Crown
Judgment: 7 May 2013
ORAL JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J (Appeal against sentence)
Introduction
[1] Mr Drinkwater pleaded guilty to:
(a) driving while disqualified (having been previously convicted on at least three occasions of such an offence);
(b) breach of a protection order; and
(c) possession of an offensive weapon.
DRINKWATER V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC NWP CRI 2013-443-12 [7 May 2013]
[2] He was sentenced to a total of 15 months’ imprisonment. The Judge refused to impose a sentence of home detention. Further, he disqualified the appellant for an additional period of 12 months.
[3] The appellant’s case is that the sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive, particularly the uplift of six months’ imprisonment from the starting point of 10 months’ imprisonment for the driving while disqualified charges. Further, the appellant says, the Judge failed to give proper credit for mitigating factors.
[4] The appeal though essentially was argued on the proposition that a start sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment for driving while disqualified charge was too high, resulting in a manifestly excessive end sentence.
The facts
[5] In May 2008 the appellant was convicted of driving while his licence was suspended and disqualified. In August 2011, he was convicted of driving while disqualified for a third or subsequent time and disqualified for a further period of
12 months from that date.
[6] On 21 August 2012, the appellant was stopped driving his vehicle in
Kaikohe. He acknowledged he was disqualified.
[7] It seems that the matter was called in the Kaikohe District Court initially and the proceedings transferred to New Plymouth on 5 September 2012 when he pleaded guilty to the charge.
[8] He was remanded on bail for sentence. Three days later on
8 September 2012, the appellant was at his home in Waitara with his partner. He woke to find her gone. Eventually he discovered her at a neighbour’s house where she told him she no longer wished to live with him.
[9] The appellant left a short time later, reappeared carrying a screwdriver and a wooden pole. He began yelling and abusing the victim and others and threatened to stab everyone present with a screwdriver. Eventually he left.
[10] The appellant’s partner had obtained a protection order in 2008. The appellant, therefore, was charged with breaching the protection order as well as possession of an offensive weapon on that day.
The District Court decision
[11] The appellant pleaded guilty to those two offences shortly after he appeared in Court. At sentencing with respect to all three offences, the Judge noted that the appellant had a large number of previous convictions. In particular, the Judge mentioned he had 10 previous convictions for driving while disqualified, this, therefore, would be the 11th, six of which were…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Drinkwater v Police and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2013] NZHC 1036
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The Court considered the proper approach in sentencing for a third or subsequent driving while disqualified charge and whether the Judge’s starting point of 16 months’ imprisonment adequately took into account the spread of previous convictions and the appellant’s age. The Court also considered the other offending, which was a highly charged situation where the appellant’s partner and others were threatened with serious physical assault by the appellant.
The Court found that the Judge’s starting point of 16 months’ imprisonment more than adequately took into account the spread of previous convictions and the appellant’s age. The Court further found that the reduction of 25 per cent collectively for the appellant’s guilty pleas was effectively the maximum available to the appellant. In those circumstances, the Court found that the overall sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.