Green v Police - [2017] NZHC 313

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2016-409-000098 [2017] NZHC 313

BETWEEN
NATALIE MARIE GREEN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 28 February 2017

Appearances:

N R Rout for Appellant
C J Bernhardt and C J Boshier for Respondent

Judgment:

1 March 2017

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

Introduction

[1] On 6 July 2016, the appellant was sentenced in the District Court at Christchurch to 18 months’ licence disqualification, seven and a half months’ home detention and $30,000 reparation following convictions on the following charges:1

(a) failing to stop to ascertain injury;

(b) driving with excess blood alcohol (third or subsequent); (c) two counts of aggravated assault;
(d) failing to stop for red and blue flashing lights (x 2);

(e) driving in a dangerous manner;

1 New Zealand Police v Green [2016] NZDC 12573.

GREEN v NZ POLICE [2017] NZHC 313 [1 March 2017]

(f) reckless driving; and

(g) failing to stop.

[2] The appellant now appeals her sentence but only so far as the reparation order of $30,000 is concerned.

Background

[3] Late on 8 February 2015, the appellant went on what can only be described as an offending spree involving predominantly traffic related offences. She was first observed by neighbours driving over kerbs and almost hitting parked vehicles. When approached and spoken to, it appears she broke down in a distressed and emotional state. Her vehicle was driven back to her home by a neighbour in order to prevent her from driving. However, a short time later, the evening turned for the worst as the appellant got back behind the wheel.

[4] Repeatedly then, the appellant drove down the wrong side of various roads, causing other vehicles to swerve into the incorrect lane to avoid crashing into her. At times, this was done during moderate to heavy traffic flow, forcing other vehicles to take evasive action to avoid collision. When the appellant’s reckless actions were noticed by the authorities, a prolonged police chase ensued. On numerous occasions, when the police followed directly behind the appellant with red and blue flashing lights and sirens, the appellant failed to stop.

[5] Her failure to stop when followed by the police was further aggravated by a number of factors. First, the appellant drove 100km/hr in a 50 km/hr zone, secondly, she threw items from her vehicle, such as her handbag, in the path of the police and, thirdly, in blatant disregard of the authorities, it seems she waved her middle finger out the car window at the police.

[6] Relevant to the current appeal is the significant damage overall the appellant caused in this offending spree. The appellant drove through a red light, hitting another vehicle coming from her left on a green light. After driving into the vehicle, she continued accelerating, pushing it across the intersection before driving on up the

road. As she did this she struck a second vehicle which had been stationary on the other side of the intersection. When cornered by the police in…

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 Green v Police

Details

AGLC: Green v Police [2017] NZHC 313
Case: [2017] NZHC 313
Decision Date: 1 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Natalie Green appeals against her sentence imposed in the District Court at Christchurch, specifically the reparation order of $30,000. The District Court had sentenced her to 18 months’ licence disqualification, seven and a half months’ home detention, and $30,000 reparation following convictions for various traffic offences and assault. The reparation order was imposed for the damage to a retaining wall belonging to an innocent third party, Mr Ray Edwards, caused by the appellant's reckless driving. The appellant contends that the reparation order is manifestly excessive and should be reduced to $45 per week, which she claims is the maximum amount she can afford.

The central legal issue in this case is whether the reparation order imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive, resulting in undue hardship for the appellant. The court must determine whether the reparation order was significantly more severe than it ought to have been in light of the seriousness of the offence and the culpability of the offender. Additionally, the court must assess whether the appellant has demonstrated that the reparation order would cause undue hardship to her and her family.

The High Court found that the appellant had not provided sufficient up-to-date financial information to support her claim that the reparation order would cause undue hardship. The court noted that the appellant had previously received some financial assistance from family members, which had since ceased. Furthermore, the appellant and her family were renting their home from her parents-in-law, potentially providing some flexibility in rental payments. The court also observed that the appellant's future earning capacity had not been addressed. Ultimately, the High Court held that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that the District Court's reparation order was manifestly excessive, and the appeal was dismissed.

In conclusion, the High Court found that the reparation order imposed by the District Court was not manifestly excessive and did not cause undue hardship for the appellant or her family. The appeal against the reparation order was dismissed, and the original sentence, including the reparation order, was upheld.

Orders