Lawrence v Police - [2013] NZHC 197

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI 2012-443-2214 [2013] NZHC 197

BETWEEN KURT WILLIAM LAWRENCE Appellant

ANDTHE POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 11 February 2013

Appearances: J Hannam for appellant
J Mooney for respondent

Judgment: 14 February 2013

JUDGMENT OF ALLAN J

In accordance with r 11.5 I direct that the Registrar endorse this judgment with the delivery time of 2.30 pm on Thursday 14 February 2013

Solicitors:
Hannam & Co, New Plymouth Julian@hannamlawyers.co.nz
C&M Legal, josie.mooney@candmlegal.co.nz

LAWRENCE V THE POLICE HC NWP CRI 2012-443-2214 [14 February 2013]

Introduction

[1] Mr Lawrence appeals against a sentence of six months imprisonment imposed by Judge Roberts in the New Plymouth District Court on 6 December 2012, on one charge of driving while suspended. A concurrent sentence of two months imprisonment was imposed on a second identical charge arising from an earlier incident.1

[2] Mr Hannam argues that, had these been two cases of driving while disqualified, the sentence would have been unchallengeable. But because these were offences of driving while suspended, the sentence of six months imprisonment was manifestly excessive, he submits.

Factual background

[3] Between 2007 and 2010, the appellant had been convicted of driving while disqualified (one offence), and driving while his licence was suspended (two offences).

[4] On 31 July 2012, he was suspended from driving for a period of three months as the result of an accumulation of demerit points. That period of suspension ended on 30 October 2012.

[5] On 14 August 2012, the appellant drove a motor vehicle on Leach Street, New Plymouth. He was stopped by police for a random licence and safety check. Initially he gave false details as to his identity but inquiries made by the police soon revealed his true identity.

[6] Having appeared in the District Court he was remanded for sentence on

28 November 2012. On 8 November 2012, his period of suspension was extended to

7 February 2013, because he had accumulated further demerit points.

1 Police v Lawrence DC New Plymouth CRI-2012-043-2214, 6 December 2012.

[7] On 27 November 2012, the day before his scheduled appearance for sentence on the 14 August charge, the appellant drove a motor car on Gover Street, New Plymouth. Again he denied his identity; again police checks revealed who he was.

District Court decision

[8] Judge Roberts said that the first of the two offences in time, being the appellant’s fourth offence of driving while suspended or disqualified, may have merited a sentence falling just short of imprisonment, but the second, committed while the appellant was awaiting sentence for the earlier offence, had to result in a sentence of imprisonment. That subsequent act of driving while suspended, was as the Judge saw it:

…the ultimate act of contempt.

[9] He went on:

I do not consider the other penalties serve as a true deterrent and, after all, nothing thus far has served to have you modify your behaviour.

[10] Ultimately, the appellant was sentenced to six months imprisonment on the second…

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 [2013] NZHC 197
Case: [2013] NZHC 197
Decision Date: 14 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Kurt William Lawrence appealed against a six-month imprisonment sentence imposed by Judge Roberts in the New Plymouth District Court for driving while suspended. The appellant was also sentenced to a concurrent two months imprisonment for a similar charge. Lawrence argued that the sentence was excessive, particularly since the offences were of driving while suspended rather than disqualified. The appeal hinged on whether there should be a distinction between the two offences for sentencing purposes.

The court considered whether the legislative intent was to treat driving while disqualified and driving while suspended as equally serious. The Land Transport Act 1998 prescribes the same maximum penalty for both offences, implying that they are considered equally grave. The court noted that the demerit point system and court-imposed disqualifications serve different but complementary purposes in regulating driver behaviour. Despite the different processes leading to suspension and disqualification, the court found no logical basis to differentiate between them for sentencing. The universal judicial approach treats both offences as of equivalent gravity.

The court ultimately rejected Lawrence's argument that his driving while suspended should have resulted in a more lenient sentence. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the sentence imposed by the District Court was appropriate.

Orders