Eagle v Police - [2024] NZHC 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2024-409-000139

[2024] NZHC 2020

BETWEEN
TREVOR EAGLE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 22 July 2024

Appearances:

M Starling for the Appellant L Fiennes for the Respondent

Judgment:

23 July 2024

JUDGMENT OF HARVEY J

This judgment is delivered by me on 23 July 2024 at 2.30pm.

…………………………………………..
Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Counsel:
M Starling, Barrister, Christchurch

Solicitors:
Raymond Donnelly & Co (Crown Solicitor’s Office), Christchurch

EAGLE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 2020 [23 July 2024]

Introduction

[1] Trevor Eagle pleaded guilty to driving in a dangerous manner,1 failing to give name and address on demand,2 possession of a knife,3 resisting police,4 and refusing to give a blood sample.5 On 21 May 2024, Judge Couch sentenced him to 17 months’ imprisonment.6 Mr Eagle now appeals that sentence on the basis that it is manifestly excessive.

[2] Mr Starling, for Mr Eagle, argued that the Judge was inadvertently misled by Mr Eagle’s then counsel about the 172 days he spent in custody before sentencing. This period was characterised as custodial remand, which would have been applied as a credit against Mr Eagle’s end sentence by prison authorities. However, Mr Eagle had instead been recalled to prison before sentencing and a different approach was required. Counsel submitted that the Court could apply a “one for one” approach to the days spent on recall. Mr Starling also confirmed that his client was on parole at the time of the offending, having been sentenced to preventative detention in 2006. Counsel underscored that the net effect for his client should the appeal be allowed would be to enable him to appear before the Parole Board at an earlier date. A successful appeal would not result in his release.

[3] Ms Fiennes for the Police accepted that some adjustment was necessary given the circumstances. She contended that the correct pathway would be for this Court to follow Fane v R and apply a two-thirds approach to the time spent on recall.7

The offending

[4] On the morning of 1 December 2023, Mr Eagle was driving on Springs Road near Lincoln. At the time, Police were attending a crash nearby. Mr Eagle crossed the

1      Land Transport Act 1998, s 35(1)(b). Maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $4,500.
2      Section 52A(1)(a)(ii), 52A (3), 52A (6) & 114(2). Maximum penalty a fine not exceeding $10,000.
3      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 13A. Maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $2,000.
4      Section 23(a). Maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $2,000.
5      Land Transport Act 1998, s 60(1)(c), 60(3) & 73(1).     Maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $6,000. Minimum 12 months’ disqualification.
6      Police v Eagle [2024] NZDC 11412.
7      Fane v R [2019] NZHC 408.

centre line and deliberately drove into a police vehicle on the grass verge. He…

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 Eagle v Police

Details

AGLC: Eagle v Police [2024] NZHC 2020
Case: [2024] NZHC 2020
Decision Date: 23 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Trevor Eagle, the appellant, challenged the 17-month imprisonment sentence imposed on him by Judge Couch for various driving offences and other charges. The appeal was based on the argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The primary contention was that the Judge was misled by Eagle’s previous counsel regarding the 172 days he spent in custody before sentencing, which should have been accounted for differently. Mr Starling, representing Eagle, argued for a “one for one” approach to the days spent on recall, while Ms Fiennes, for the Police, suggested a two-thirds deduction following established case law.

The court had to determine the appropriate approach to adjust the sentence for the time Eagle spent in custody post-recall. The central legal issue was whether the court should adopt a “one for one” approach or a two-thirds reduction for the time spent on recall, as suggested by the authorities cited by Ms Fiennes. The court needed to balance the arguments presented by both sides and decide on the appropriate reduction to ensure the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The Court found that while a “one for one” approach was permissible, the two-thirds reduction was more appropriate in this case, aligning with the established judicial practice. The Court agreed with Ms Fiennes that the Judge erred by not properly accounting for the time spent on recall, leading to a manifestly excessive sentence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced from 17 months’ to 13 months’ imprisonment, with a discount of four months for the time spent on recall.

Orders