Legal Research
Cases
Hayde v Police

Hayde v Police

Case [2021] NZHC 3218 29 November 2021

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2021-404-000369

[2021] NZHC 3218

BETWEEN
SEAN HAYDE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 15 November 2021

Appearances:

S Tait for Appellant

A Al-Janabi for Respondent

Judgment:

29 November 2021

JUDGMENT OF ROBINSON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 November 2021 at 12:00 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Manukau. S Tait, Auckland.

HAYDE v NZ POLICE [2021] NZHC 3218 [29 November 2021]

Background

[1] On 23 July 2021 Sean Hayde pleaded guilty to one charge of driving with excess breath alcohol (for a third or subsequent time).1 Judge D J McNaughton sentenced Mr Hayde to nine months’ imprisonment and disqualified him from holding or obtaining a driver license for one year and one day.2

[2] Mr Hayde now appeals against the sentence of imprisonment on the basis that the Judge failed to give proper reasons and consequently imposed a sentence that was manifestly excessive. The Crown opposes the appeal.

The offending

[3] On 11 April 2018, Mr Hayde appeared in the Pukekohe District Court and was convicted of driving with excess breath excess alcohol (for a third or subsequent time). He had necessarily been convicted of driving with excess breath alcohol two times prior.

[4] At approximately 11.30 pm on 13 February 2020, Mr Hayde was the driver of a Holden Colorado travelling east on a street in Howick. The street is situated in a residential and commercial area. The speed limit is 60 kilometres per hour. The street has six lanes.

[5] Mr Hayde was swerving all over the road. He crashed into a parked vehicle. Mr Hayde did not check whether anybody was injured, nor if the other vehicle was damaged. Instead, he continued to drive around the nearby streets. At one stage, he mounted the kerb and caused extensive damage to the front left tyre of the vehicle. The tyre separated from the rim, but Mr Hayde continued to drive around. This caused damage to the road.

[6] Mr Hayde continued to drive around numerous nearby streets. At one point he drove on the wrong side of a roundabout. He eventually stopped the car.

1 Land Transport Act 1998, s 56(1) and (4). Maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $6,000. The Court must also order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for more than one year.
2 Police v Hayde [2021] NZDC 15215.

[7] Police arrived shortly after. They conducted evidential breath test procedures. Mr Hayde’s breath was found to contain 556 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath.

District Court sentencing

[8]The Judge’s sentencing decision is repeated in full below:3

Mr Hayde, the sentence I am imposing on this charge is not going to make any difference to your current situation given how long you have been in custody and given how long you have got to wait in custody for the trial…

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 Hayde v Police

Details

AGLC: Hayde v Police [2021] NZHC 3218
Case: [2021] NZHC 3218
Decision Date: 29 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sean Hayde appealed against his nine-month imprisonment sentence for driving with excess breath alcohol, arguing that the District Court Judge failed to give proper reasons for the sentence and that it was manifestly excessive. The Police opposed the appeal. The central issue was whether the Judge erred by failing to provide adequate reasons for the sentence and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court noted that while the absence of reasons does not automatically lead to a successful appeal, it is generally good practice for Judges to provide reasons, especially in sentencing. In this case, although the brevity of the decision was somewhat understandable due to the defendant's request for a sentence and waiver of a pre-sentence report, the Judge should have still outlined the starting point and any discounts applied. The Court found that a starting point of 12 months was appropriate, given the seriousness of the offending, and a 25 per cent guilty plea discount resulted in an appropriate end sentence of nine months' imprisonment. The Court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

Orders