Hughes v Police

Link copied
Case Copied 12 min read

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2018-409-000035

[2018] NZHC 1807

BETWEEN

SHANE EDWARD HUGHES

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 19 July 2018

Appearances:

K L Chalmers for Appellant

S Bicknell Young for Respondent

Judgment:

19 July 2018


ORAL JUDGMENT OF VENNING J


Solicitors/counsel:           K L Chalmers, Christchurch

Crown Solicitor, Christchurch

HUGHES v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZHC 1807 [19 July 2018]

[1]        Shane Hughes pleaded guilty to charges of driving whilst disqualified (third or subsequent), driving with excess breath alcohol (third or subsequent), reckless operation of a motor vehicle, resisting a constable, and possession of offensive weapons.

[2]        On 21 March 2018 Judge A A Couch sentenced Mr Hughes to imprisonment for one year and 10 months and imposed standard and special release conditions together with disqualification.1

[3]Mr Hughes appeals against sentence. The grounds of appeal are:

(a)the Judge erred by declining Mr Hughes’ application for an adjournment, thus preventing him from pursuing alternative addresses for a home detention sentence; and

(b)that the sentence was manifestly excessive, in particular the sentences imposed for the charges of possession of offensive weapon and excess breath alcohol charges.

[4]        Mr Hughes seeks orders quashing the sentence and remitting it back to the District Court and in the alternative, but not preferred, an order quashing sentence and substituting a different lesser sentence.

[5]        At the outset of the hearing of this appeal this morning Ms Chalmers sought an adjournment. She advanced two reasons in particular for the adjournment:

(a)first, she wanted time to respond to the Crown submissions insofar as they rely on a passage in the pre-sentence report; and

(b)second, she only received the Crown submissions in the evening of Tuesday and had only had one clear day to consider them.


1      New Zealand Police v Hughes [2018] NZDC 8444.

[6]        I declined the application for adjournment. I indicated that I was prepared not to take account of the particular passage in the pre-sentence report and indicated that in my view one day to prepare a response to the Crown submissions in reply on a sentence appeal was sufficient. However I stood the matter down from the list in the morning to 3.45 pm for the appeal to give counsel further time.

[7]        The relevant offending is described by the Judge in his sentencing notes as involving two incidents.

[8]        In the afternoon of 15 October 2016 Mr Hughes was driving a car on State Highway 2 near Waipukurau. At the time he was disqualified from driving. That led to the charge of driving whilst disqualified (third or subsequent).

[9]        Seven months later, on 20 May 2017, Mr Hughes was again driving in the Waipukurau area. He failed to stop at a police cordon which had been set up to stop him. He drove off at a speed estimated of up to 100 kilometres an hour in a 50 kilometre per hour residential zone. He hit a traffic island at…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hughes v Police and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2018] NZHC 1807
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Shane Hughes appeals against his sentence for multiple driving and weapons-related offences, arguing that the judge erred by declining an adjournment and that the sentence was excessive. The High Court of New Zealand reviews the arguments and the judge's reasoning. The court finds that the judge's decision to deny the adjournment was justified as there was no suitable home detention address available, and the statutory provision for such cases was correctly applied. Regarding the sentence's severity, the court determines that the starting point for the possession of offensive weapons was appropriately set at 12 months, considering the context and nature of the offences. The uplift for excess breath alcohol and reckless driving was also deemed justified due to the seriousness of the driving and the high breath alcohol level. The overall sentence, after discounts for guilty pleas and totality, was within an acceptable range and appropriately reflected the gravity of the offences. The appeal is dismissed.

In light of the court's decision, no further orders are necessary beyond the dismissal of the appeal. The sentence imposed by the Christchurch District Court remains in effect.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.