Hood v Police - [2022] NZHC 120

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND BLENHEIM REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WAIHARAKEKE ROHE

CRI-2021-406-000014

[2022] NZHC 120

BETWEEN
RICHARD EARNEST HOOD

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 4 February 2022

Counsel:

M Zintl for the Appellant

M A Harris for the Respondent

Judgment:

8 February 2022

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

Solicitors:
M Zintl, Blenheim M Harris, Nelson

RICHARD EARNEST HOOD v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 120 [8 February 2022]

Introduction

[1] The appellant Mr Richard Hood pleaded guilty in the District Court to numerous drug charges, namely offering to supply methamphetamine (x 29),1 offering to sell cannabis2 and offering to supply morphine.3 In addition he pleaded guilty to the charge of driving while suspended.4 He was sentenced on 18 October 2021 by Judge Ruth to 18 months’ imprisonment, with leave to apply for home detention.5 He was also disqualified from driving for six months to commence from the date of sentencing.

[2] On 20 December 2021, Judge Zohrab converted the appellant’s remaining term of imprisonment to 46 days of home detention. This sentence is due to expire early February 2022.6 This means that once his sentence of home detention is finished, the appellant will still have two and a half months’ left of his disqualification period.

[3] Mr Hood appeals this sentence solely in relation to the disqualification from driving penalty. He says that Judge Ruth erred in failing to backdate the period from which the disqualification began, pursuant to s 85(1) of the Land Transport Act 1998 (the Act).

Background to the offending

[4]The drug charges are as follows:

(a)Between 1 October 2020 and 1 April 2021, the appellant offered to supply methamphetamine to approximately 29 persons by way of text message on 79 occasions.

(b)On 18 October 2020, the appellant offered to supply morphine to one person.

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(c) and (2); maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2      Section 6(1)(e); maximum penalty 8 years’ imprisonment.
3      Sections 6(1)(c) and (2); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
4      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 32(1)(c) and (3); maximum penalty 3 months’ imprisonment, or a fine of $4,500; and minimum disqualification period of six months.
5      Police v Hood [2021] NZDC 20539.
6      Department of Corrections v Hood [2021] NZDC 25483.

(c)Between 21 October 2020 and 2 January 2021, the appellant offered to sell cannabis to three persons.

[5] The driving while suspended charge arose from an incident on 10 February 2021. On 8 December 2020, the appellant was suspended from driving for three months due to excess demerit points. At about 5.25 pm on 10 February 2021 he was seen driving a vehicle in Blenheim in breach of supervision. When spoken to Police, he admitted to doing this.

District court decision

[6] The appellant pleaded guilty to the charges and was sentenced in the District Court by Judge Ruth as follows:

(a)In relation to the drug offending, 18 months’ imprisonment was imposed, with leave to apply for home detention.

(b)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 Hood v Police

Details

AGLC: Hood v Police [2022] NZHC 120
Case: [2022] NZHC 120
Decision Date: 8 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Richard Hood appeals his sentence in relation to the disqualification from driving penalty imposed by Judge Ruth in the District Court. The appellant submits that the Judge erred in failing to backdate the disqualification period as requested. The respondent contends that there is no identifiable error in the District Court’s decision to refuse to backdate the start date of the disqualification period. The Court finds that there was no error in the sentencing Judge’s decision not to backdate the disqualification period. The decision whether to backdate a period of disqualification is a matter of discretion for the sentencing Judge. The appropriateness of doing so depends on the particular circumstances of the case before the sentencing Judge, and that Judge’s best judgment. The Judge clearly turned his mind to the request and opted not to exercise his discretion to backdate the disqualification, in the knowledge that the disqualification period would extend beyond the appellant’s release. It appears that with his outstanding fines wiped and remaining community work cancelled, the Judge considered that a two-and-a-half month period of disqualification after the appellant’s release would be appropriate. This was clearly within an appropriate range. The Court sees no identifiable error in the Judge’s approach or the exercise of his discretion here. The appeal is dismissed.

Orders