Haig v Police - [2017] NZHC 2751

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TŪRANGANUI-A-KIWA ROHE

CRI-2017-416-20 [2017] NZHC 2751

BETWEEN
KANI DEAN HAIG

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 1 November 2017

Appearances:

N Wright and B Shackell for the Appellant
C C Gullidge for the Respondent

Judgment:

9 November 2017

JUDGMENT OF CULL J

[1] Mr Haig was driving on 27 January 2017 and was stopped by chance for a routine traffic stop. While at the stop, Mr Haig admitted being disqualified from driving and said he was driving a friend home. Mr Haig pleaded guilty to one charge of driving while disqualified.1 This was Mr Haig’s eighth conviction for offending of this type.

[2] On 23 August 2017, Judge Cathcart sentenced Mr Haig to six months’ imprisonment and disqualified him from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for one year and one day.2 In doing so, the Judge dismissed an application under s 94 of the Land Transport Act 1998 to impose a community-based sentence in substitution
of the licence disqualification.

1 Land Transport Act 1998, ss 32(1)(a) and 32(4). For a third or subsequent offence, the maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment, or a fine not exceeding $6,000, and disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver licence for one year or more.
2 New Zealand Police v Haig [2017] NZDC 18914.

HAIG v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 2751 [9 November 2017]

[3] Mr Haig appeals his sentence on the basis that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. Specifically, Mr Haig submits the Judge was wrong to:

(a) conclude previous sentences for similar offending had no effect on him;

(b) consider imprisonment was the appropriate sentence; and

(c) overlook the merits of the s 94 application.

[4] The Crown opposes the appeal and argues the end sentence was appropriate given the offending and Mr Haig’s convictions for similar offending. The Crown submits the Judge did not err in concluding that Mr Haig’s previous sentences did not have an effect on him and the Judge was correct to dismiss the s 94 application.

District Court decision

[5] At sentencing, Judge Cathcart observed Mr Haig had very recently been convicted of three occasions of similar offending in 2015, where he received a sentence of four months’ home detention. The Judge emphasised that this was serious offending, as this was Mr Haig’s eighth offence of this kind.

[6] The Judge adopted a starting point of 10 months’ imprisonment.

[7] The Judge considered the positive features of Mr Haig’s personal circumstances, which included that Mr Haig now has a valid driver’s licence; he has regularly attended the Tairawhiti Men’s Centre since 2015; he is the Chairperson of Narcotics Anonymous and a member of Alcoholic Anonymous; as well as recently commencing a four-year degree in social work.

[8] The Judge also considered the recommendations of the PAC report. The PAC report recommended a sentence of imprisonment and assessed Mr Haig’s risk as high because of his entrenched pattern of…

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 Haig v Police

Details

AGLC: Haig v Police [2017] NZHC 2751
Case: [2017] NZHC 2751
Decision Date: 9 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, KANI DEAN HAIG, appeals the sentence imposed by Judge Cathcart in the District Court on 23 August 2017. Mr Haig was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for one year and one day for one charge of driving while disqualified, being his eighth conviction for similar offending. The Judge dismissed an application under s 94 of the Land Transport Act 1998 to impose a community-based sentence in substitution of the licence disqualification. Mr Haig appeals his sentence on the basis that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The Crown opposes the appeal. The Court extended the time allowed for filing Mr Haig’s notice of appeal in this case, which was filed one day out of time. The Court found the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive in this instance. The appeal is dismissed.

Orders