Ellis v Police

[2014] NZHC 3076

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2014-488-000044 [2014] NZHC 3076

BETWEEN

TROY DANIEL ELLIS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	3 December 2014
Appearances:	No appearance by Appellant M A Jarman-Taylor for the Respondent
Judgment:	3 December 2014

ORAL JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

Solicitors:      Crown Solicitor, Whangarei

Copy To:       Appellant

ELLIS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 3076 [3 December 2014]

[1]      Following a defended hearing in the District Court at Whangarei Troy Ellis was convicted on one charge of driving a motor vehicle while impaired and with blood  containing  evidence  of  the  use  of  cannabis.     Judge  D  J  McDonald subsequently fined him $250, Court costs $130, analyst’s fees $752.63 and disqualified him from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for six months from

23 October 2014.

[2]      Mr Ellis represented himself before the District Court and filed an appeal on his own behalf. The appeal was stated to be against sentence.

[3]      No submissions have been filed on behalf of Mr Ellis in support of the appeal and when the matter was called this afternoon there was no appearance by or on behalf of Mr Ellis.

[4]      The notice of the date of the hearing of this appeal was sent to Mr Ellis at the address he recorded as his address on the notice of general appeal.

[5]      As there is no appearance in support of the appeal it could be dismissed for want of prosecution.  However, in preparation for the appeal I reviewed the appeal file and I am satisfied that on its merits there is no substance to the appeal against sentence and indeed, for that matter, of any prospect of an appeal against conviction succeeding.

[6]      The Judge in a carefully considered reserved decision correctly identified the elements of the offending, rehearsed and considered the evidence relating to those elements, and found each of the elements proved beyond reasonable doubt.  In those circumstances a conviction was inevitable.

[7]      The sentence imposed, bearing in mind the maximum penalty available for offending of this nature, was towards the lower end of the scale and the period of disqualification is the minimum period prescribed by law.

[8]      In the circumstances the appeal is dismissed on its merits.

Venning J