I v Police HC Christchurch CRI 2009 409 8

[2009] NZHC 169

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2009 409 008

I

Appellant

v

POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         19 February 2009

Appearances: S G Bailey for Appellant

R M Thomas and S Jamieson for Respondent

Judgment:      19 February 2009

ORAL JUDGMENT OF CHISHOLM J

[1]      Having pleaded guilty to a second charge of drink driving the appellant was fined $1,000 and disqualified for a period of 18 months.  When imposing penalty the Judge said that he had reduced the fine by $500 (presumably to reflect information that had been provided by the Duty Solicitor then representing the appellant) and that he had adjusted the disqualification accordingly.  This is an appeal against the period of disqualification.

[2]      Mrs Bailey reviewed the authorities and submitted that the current position is that a second drink driving offence normally attracts a disqualification of around

eight months, at least in this district.  In support of her contention Mrs Bailey relies

I V POLICE HC CHCH CRI 2009 409 008  19 February 2009

in particular on Blanco v Police (High Court, Auckland Registry, CRI 2008-404-

000072, 6 May 2008) and Martin v Police (High Court, Auckland, CRI 2008-404-

000044, 6 May 2008 which were delivered on the same day by the same Judge. Rodney Hansen J concluded that more recent decisions suggest the usual range for second convictions is 6-12 months.  A comprehensive schedule of cases as to periods of disqualification for second or subsequent drink driving and driving whilst disqualified was provided by Mrs Bailey.

[3]      On the other hand, Ms Jamieson relies on authority at the other end of the spectrum.  For example, in Edwards v Police (High Court, New Plymouth Registry, AP31/02, 13 August 2002) Chambers J concluded that an 18 month period of disqualification was within the available range for a second drink driving offence.  It is the Crown’s submission that the 18 months disqualification in this case could not be regarded as manifestly excessive.

[4]      As Priestley J said in Morgan v Police (High Court, Hamilton Registry, CRI

2007-419-17, 22 February 2007), there are so many diverse and individual factors thrown up by repeat drink drive cases that consistency is any pure sense is well nigh impossible.  It is also difficult to reconcile the authorities.

[5]      In this case there was nothing exceptional about the second offence which Mrs Bailey described as being “as simple as you can get”.  The appellant is a 20 year old student.   The only factor that would justify a departure from the disqualification normally imposed is the reduction in the fine.

[6]      Having done my best to reconcile the authorities (which is not easy), I have come to the conclusion that the disqualification in this case is manifestly excessive. While there needs to be some compensation for the reduction in the fine, even allowing for that factor, the disqualification of 18 months seems to be out of step with the period of disqualification traditionally imposed in this region.

[7]      Under those circumstances I have, albeit with some misgivings, decided that the appropriate course is to reduce the disqualification to 12 months.   That would

still represent a reasonably significant increase on the disqualification of around eight months that seems to be traditionally imposed.

Solicitors:           Crown Solicitor, Christchurch

S Bailey, Christchurch