Jennison v Police - [2022] NZHC 2070

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2022-409-106

[2022] NZHC 2070

BETWEEN
JASON KERRY JENNISON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 18 August 2022

Appearances:

T Aickin for Appellant

G E R Alloway for Respondent

Judgment:

19 August 2022

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 August 2022 at 11.30 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

JENNISON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 2070 [19 August 2022]

Introduction

[1] On 8 June 2022, Jason Jennison was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment and disqualified from driving for two years on one charge each of dangerous driving and driving while impaired.1 He appeals his sentence of imprisonment saying he should have been sentenced to home detention.

Facts

[2] Mr Jennison has five previous convictions for driving with excess breath alcohol.

[3] At 4:50 pm on 22 March 2021, Mr Jennison was driving a vehicle on Selwyn Road, Rolleston. Police had received multiple driving complaints about his vehicle being driven erratically and crossing the centreline before it crashed and hit a fence. He was spoken to at the scene and exhibited signs of being under the influence of a drug. He failed a compulsory impairment test. Blood test procedures were carried out and an ESR analysis of the sample showed Mr Jennison was under the influence of Lorazepam and Tramadol.

[4] His defence that the Lorazepam was taken involuntarily was rejected at a Judge Alone Trial.2 Indeed, the Judge formed the view that Mr Jennison and his mother “contrived” the explanation for how he came to have taken the drugs and concluded he lacked credibility.3

District Court sentencing decision

[5] The Judge described Mr Jennison’s erratic driving in his sentencing decision as follows:

1      Police v Jennison [2022] NZDC 10467.
2      Police v Jennison [2022] NZDC 4316.
3      At [53](e) and (g).

[6] … It included Mr Jennison driving over the speed limit and crossing the centre line on numerous occasions to the point of causing so much concern that not only did the complainant phone Police but she followed him. Her evidence included pleading with the operator for help. She provided updates on a long stretch of Brougham Street which of course is a very busy road with the driving continuing onto the motorway swerving out form his lane into the one beside it and ending right up hard against the median fence. Cars were passing and taking a wide berth to avoid being hit if he veered into their lane.

[7] At the end of the Southern Motorway he took the Shands Road exit. He sat completely through the first green arrow and almost through the second before going through very late. At this point the complainant described his driving as “truly terrifying”, driving fast and travelling far too close to people in front before they would turn off. He would cross the centre line into oncoming traffic…

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 Jennison v Police

Details

AGLC: Jennison v Police [2022] NZHC 2070
Case: [2022] NZHC 2070
Decision Date: 19 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand heard an appeal by Jason Kerry Jennison against his sentence of imprisonment and disqualification from driving. Jennison was sentenced to 16 months' imprisonment and disqualified from driving for two years on charges of dangerous driving and driving while impaired. The appeal concerned the appropriateness of the sentence, arguing that Jennison should have been sentenced to home detention instead. The appellant's arguments were centered on the Judge's failure to account for mitigating factors such as the time spent on bail without breach or further offending and the personal circumstances of Jennison. The respondent argued that the Judge's decision was justified given the principles of deterrence and denunciation.

The court found that the Judge had adequately considered the mitigating factors, including the time Jennison had spent on bail and his personal circumstances. However, the court emphasized the dominant purposes of sentencing in this case were deterrence and denunciation due to the nature of Jennison's driving and his history of previous convictions for driving under the influence. The Judge had the benefit of presiding over Jennison's trial and was not impressed with the evidence presented. The court found that the Judge was entitled to find that nothing short of imprisonment would satisfy the purposes of denunciation and deterrence in this case.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence of imprisonment was upheld. The court concluded that while there were factors pointing to the suitability of a home detention sentence, the Judge had the discretion to prioritize deterrence and denunciation given the egregious nature of the driving and the history of previous convictions. The decision was not found to be manifestly excessive or unjustified by the relevant sentencing principles.

Orders