Laracy v Police - [2016] NZHC 2615

IN THE HIG H COURT O F NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REG ISTRY

CRI-2016-485-71 [2016] NZHC 2615

BETWEEN
JOSIAH LEE LARACY

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 1 November 2016

Counsel:

C W Ross for Appellant
C M Gisler for Respondent

Judgment:

1 November 2016

JUDGMENT O F WILLIAMS J

Introduction

[1] Mr Laracy is 23 years old. He pleaded guilty to a single charge of driving while disqualified. This is his second such conviction.

[2] His counsel made an application under s 94 of the Land Transport Act 1998 to substitute a further period of disqualification with a sentence of communi ty work. The application was granted. He was sentenced by Judge Johnston in Wellington to
350 hours’ communi ty work. 1

[3] He now appeals that sentence as manifestl y excessive.

[4] The parties are agreed the sentence imposed was manifestl y excessive.

1 Police v Laracy [2016] NZDC 17206.

LARACY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 2615 [1 November 2016]

[5] On 20 November 2015, Mr Laracy was convicted of driving with excess breath alcohol. He was disqualified from driving for six months (the original disqualification). He also had to pay a fine of $550. The offence was committed two days earlier.

[6] On 25 Februar y 2016, Mr Laracy drove while disqualified. He was convicted on that charge o n 11 March 2016. He was sentenced to a further disqualification period of six months, starti ng from 21 May 2016 (the second disqualification) to allow for the original disqualification period to run its course. He was also fined
$300 and directed to pay court costs of $130.

[7] On 11 May 2016 (that is still within the first six months disqualific ation period), Mr Laracy was stopped by police while driving down Buckle St i n Wellington. He was charged with a second count of driving w hile disqualified.

[8] On 10 August 2016, Judge Johnson sentenced hi m on the 11 May charge (set out below). This is the decision he appeals.

[9] Mr Laracy has no other convictions.

District Court sentencing

[10] In his sentencing remarks, the Judge noted the police were neutral in their stance to Mr Laracy’s s 94 application to i mpose a communi ty-based sentence instead of a further period of disqualification. The Judge concl uded Mr Laracy would benefit from a community-based sentence.

[11] On the charge of driving while disqualified, the Judge sentenced Mr Laracy to 150 hours’ community work. In lieu of the otherwise mandator y period of disqualification, Mr Laracy was “convicted and sentenced to an additional 200 hours of communi ty work”. This gave a total of 350 hours’ community work.

[12] Section 94 of the Land Transport Act 1998 materially states:

94 Substitution of community-based sentences

(1) This section applies if —

(a)the offender has previously been ordered on conviction for an offence to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence; and

(b) the court, having regard to—

(i) the circumstances of…

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 Laracy v Police

Details

AGLC: Laracy v Police [2016] NZHC 2615
Case: [2016] NZHC 2615
Decision Date: 1 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Josiah Lee Laracy, the appellant, appealed against the sentence imposed on him by the District Court for driving while disqualified. The District Court had imposed a sentence of 350 hours of community work, which Laracy considered manifestly excessive. The court was required to determine if the sentence was excessive and, if so, to determine an appropriate sentence. The court considered the previous cases and noted that sentences of community work of around 80-150 hours were typical in such cases. The court concluded that the sentence of 350 hours was manifestly excessive, and a sentence of 150 hours would be appropriate. The court quashed the original sentence and substituted a sentence of 150 hours of community work. This decision highlights the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need for courts to consider previous cases when determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders