Lawrence v Police - [2016] NZHC 148

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

CRI-2015-442-0028 [2016] NZHC 148

BETWEEN
JEREMY JAMES LAWRENCE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 10 February 2016

Appearances:

M Vesty for the appellant
S K O'Donoghue for the Respondent

Judgment:

12 February 2016

JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J

This judgment was delivered by me on 12 February 2016 at 3.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:………………………….

Solicitors:

Resolution Chambers, Nelson. Crown Solicitor, Nelson.

LAWRENCE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 148 [12 February 2016]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Jeremy Lawrence, pleaded guilty to one charge of driving with excess breath alcohol. He applied for a discharge without conviction, and that no disqualification from driving should be imposed. Those applications were dismissed by a District Court Judge on 17 November 2015 and he appeals against the decision.1

[2] The appellant had a job interview the week following the appeal hearing. In the circumstances I gave a results judgment dismissing the appeal. I now give my reasons.

Background

[3] The appellant was tested as having 114 mgs of alcohol per 100 mls of blood. That is more than twice the 50 mg legal limit. There was no other driving fault, and it was accepted that the appellant miscalculated how much alcohol he had consumed. He has no previous convictions and a good driving history.

[4] The appellant’s application for discharge was based on the likelihood he would lose his employment as a result of a conviction. At the time of offending, the appellant was an agent for the companies Avis and Budget Rent-a-Car. He employed eight staff and casually employed a further 15. The appellant’s driving ability was central to these contracts. The contracts with both companies included 30 day termination clauses, and the appellant was concerned that he would lose the contracts as a result of his conviction and temporary loss of licence. The appellant mentioned other people who had similar contracts terminated after some level of misdemeanour.

[5] Shortly after the appellant’s conviction was entered, his agency agreements were terminated. This happened after 10 years of the contract being in place. The reason for terminating the contracts was unclear because the company was restructuring in a way that no longer required an independent agent. The appellant
has been invited to apply for other positions in the organisation. The positions are

1 Police v Lawrence [2015] NZDC 22815.

competitive, and the appellant is concerned that his conviction will disadvantage his application.

[6] The Judge assessed the gravity of offending as moderate. This took into account the level of alcohol detected, the appellant’s previous good character, his remorse and guilty plea, and the wider interest of deterring and denouncing those who drink and drive. The Judge then considered the likely consequences of a conviction and concluded that there was no evidence the appellant’s contract would be terminated. The Judge thought that the appellant was “too valuable to the company to be let go.” And he took…

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 Lawrence v Police

Details

AGLC: Lawrence v Police [2016] NZHC 148
Case: [2016] NZHC 148
Decision Date: 12 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jeremy Lawrence appealed against a District Court decision to refuse his application for a discharge without conviction and to impose a disqualification from driving for one year. The District Court Judge had rejected the appellant's application for a discharge without conviction on the basis that there was no real and appreciable risk that the appellant would lose his employment as a result of a conviction and disqualification from driving. The appellant had a job interview with Avis the week following the appeal hearing. The High Court considered the appeal on the papers. The legal issue for the court to decide was whether the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence. The High Court found that the offending was more serious than that in Papuni v Police, and that there was no evidence that the appellant's conviction would prevent him from getting a job, except that he would be required to disclose that fact to a prospective employer. The court held that prospective employers can be expected to consider each case on its merits. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders