Hampton v Police - [2014] NZHC 2423

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2014-463-000062 [2014] NZHC 2423

PAUL ANDREW HAMPTON Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 1 October 2014

Appearances:

Rebecca Plunket for the Appellant
Nicholas Belton for the Respondent

Judgment:

3 October 2014

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF MOORE J [Appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by on 3 October 2014 at 11:30am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar
Date:

HAMPTON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 2423 [3 October 2014]

[1] Mr Hampton, aged 46 years, was sentenced in the District Court at Whakatane to one year’s imprisonment on a charge of driving with excess breath alcohol (third and subsequent offence) and one charge of driving while disqualified.

[2] These charges arose out of a car accident which resulted in the Police being called and breath testing procedures being undertaken on Mr Hampton. Mr Hampton was well in excess of the lawful limit. He admitted he had been drinking but denied being a disqualified driver, claiming that he believed his disqualified period had expired.

[3] Mr Hampton has an extensive list of previous convictions. Of particular relevance are convictions for driving with excess breath alcohol in 1993, 2006, 2007,
2010 and 2011. This makes the present offending Mr Hampton’s sixth conviction for driving with excess breath alcohol. He is correctly described as a recidivist drink driving offender.

District Court decision

[4] The sentencing Judge noted that the pre-sentence report assessed Mr Hampton as posing a medium risk of re-offending. His Honour recited the relevant sentencing principles and purposes, particularly the need to hold Mr Hampton accountable for his offending and promoting a sense of responsibility in him. He also considered that there was a need for deterrence and denunciation when dealing with recidivist drink drivers but also acknowledged that regard needed to be had to Mr Hampton’s personal circumstances.

[5] His Honour noted that Mr Hampton’s counsel accepted that a sentence of imprisonment was inevitable but asked that it be commuted to home detention. In this context his Honour turned his mind to the impact which a sentence of imprisonment would have on his family given that he was the sole income earner.

[6] However, his Honour noted that the aggravating factors were that the offending occurred whilst Mr Hampton was on bail in relation to the driving charges and that there was a combination of not only drinking and driving but also being

disqualified, noting that issues of road safety were engaged. In particular, his

Honour noted that this was Mr Hampton’s sixth drink driving conviction.

[7] His Honour regarded that the mitigating factors present were his plea and a level of remorse with, perhaps, the dawning of some insight into the offending. In recognition of the guilty pleas and remorse, his Honour gave a discount of 30 per cent which he properly described as “pretty generous in the circumstances”.

[8] His Honour considered the central issue before him, namely whether the sentence of imprisonment…

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 Hampton v Police

Details

AGLC: Hampton v Police [2014] NZHC 2423
Case: [2014] NZHC 2423
Decision Date: 3 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Hampton v Police was heard and decided on 3 October 2014. The appellant, Paul Andrew Hampton, was appealing against his sentence imposed by the District Court at Whakatane. Hampton had been sentenced to one year's imprisonment for driving with excess breath alcohol and for driving while disqualified. These charges stemmed from a car accident where Hampton was found to be well over the lawful alcohol limit and was also found to be a disqualified driver. Hampton's history of previous convictions for similar offences made him a recidivist drink driving offender. The legal issue before the court was whether the District Court judge had erred in declining to impose a sentence of home detention instead of imprisonment.

The court considered the sentencing principles and purposes outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002, including holding Hampton accountable for his actions, promoting a sense of responsibility, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The District Court judge had taken into account the aggravating factors, such as Hampton's history of reoffending while on bail and his sixth conviction for driving with excess breath alcohol. The judge had also considered the mitigating factors, including Hampton's guilty plea and some level of remorse. Despite the judge acknowledging the impact of imprisonment on Hampton's family, the judge concluded that home detention was not appropriate due to Hampton's breach of a previous home detention sentence and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The High Court found that the District Court judge had exercised his discretion appropriately and had not erred in imposing a sentence of imprisonment. The court held that the need for deterrence and the protection of the community justified the sentence of imprisonment, especially given Hampton's history of reoffending and previous failure to comply with court orders. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of imprisonment was upheld.

Orders