Joy v Police - [2022] NZHC 2391

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2022-409-000113

[2022] NZHC 2391

BETWEEN
PUNEET JOY

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 1 September 2022

Appearances:

H C Coutts for the Appellant

G E R Alloway for the Respondent

Judgment:

19 September 2022

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

Introduction

[1] Puneet Joy was sentenced1 to seven months’ home detention in the District Court on a charge of driving with excess breath alcohol third or subsequent.2 The Judge also imposed an alcohol interlock licence. Mr Joy appeals. He says the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

Facts

[2] Mr Joy was convicted of driving with excess breath alcohol in 2004 and 2011 and refusing to provide a blood specimen in 2019.

1 Police v Joy [2022] NZDC 11240.
2 Land Transport Act 1998, ss 56(1) and 56(4); maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.

JOY v POLICE [2022] NZHC 2391 [19 September 2022]

[3] At approximately 10:30 am on 15 September 2021, Mr Joy was driving on Papanui Road. He completed a U-turn in front of oncoming traffic, causing them to take evasive action to avoid collision. Mr Joy was swerving within his lane. He continued south on Papanui Road, then turned right into Bealey Avenue and onto Harper Avenue driving erratically. He was travelling at approximately 70 km/h in a 50 km/h zone, swerving across both lanes and almost collided with a median island. He continued onto Deans Avenue and turned into a driveway to reverse out and turn around. A member of the public blocked his vehicle in the driveway by parking her car behind his. He got out of the car, handed her his keys and said he was going to the mosque. He was located by police at the mosque and required to undergo breath testing. His result was 1408 mg of alcohol per litre of breath. The legal limit is 250 mg.

District Court decision

[4] The Judge noted this was Mr Joy’s fourth conviction for driving with excess breath alcohol.3 She took as aggravating the extraordinarily high reading, more than five times the legal limit. She noted Mr Joy was subject to a sentence of intensive supervision when he offended.

[5] As mitigating circumstances, she considered Mr Joy’s alcohol dependency, the fact he was experiencing difficult personal circumstances at the time of the offending and that he had been almost nine months alcohol free. Rehabilitative steps he was taking were set out. She accepted there were lengthy gaps between some of his convictions, though noted this was not the case with his most recent.

[6] The Judge adopted a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment accounting for Mr Joy’s history. He received 20 per cent credit for his guilty plea entered “fairly early on”, leaving an adjusted starting point of 14 months. She considered the aims and objectives of sentencing were satisfied by an electronically monitored sentence rather than imprisonment, so sentenced Mr Joy to seven months’ home detention. The…

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 Joy v Police

Details

AGLC: Joy v Police [2022] NZHC 2391
Case: [2022] NZHC 2391
Decision Date: 19 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Puneet Joy was sentenced to seven months’ home detention in the District Court for driving with excess breath alcohol, third or subsequent offence. Mr Joy appealed the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard by Nation J at the Christchurch Registry of the High Court of New Zealand. The court had to decide if the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether a different sentence should be imposed. The court noted that the starting point adopted by the Judge was appropriate, and that the Judge did not adequately recognise Mr Joy's personal circumstances, remorse, and efforts at rehabilitation by sentencing credit. However, the court found that Mr Joy’s commendable efforts to deal with his addiction had been adequately recognised in the Judge’s decision to sentence him to home detention rather than imprisonment. The appeal was dismissed.
Solicitors: H C Coutts, Barrister, Christchurch Crown Solicitor’s Office, Christchurch.

Orders