M v Police HC Christchurch Cri-2009-409-86

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2009-409-000086

M

v

POLICE

Hearing: Dealt with on the papers

Counsel: A J Bailey for Appellant
K Basire for Respondent

Judgment: 4 November 2009

JUDGMENT OF HON. JUSTICE FRENCH

[1] Mr M was convicted of driving with excess blood alcohol. His sentence included an order to pay medical expenses of $156.45. He filed an appeal against that order.

[2] The issue raised by his appeal has now been resolved by the Supreme Court decision in Barr v Police [2009] NZSC 109.

[3] The effect of the Supreme Court decision in this case is that the medical expenses payable by Mr M should be reduced by $63.45, leaving the correct
amount payable to be $93.00.

M V POLICE HC CHCH CRI-2009-409-000086 4 November 2009

[4] The appeal is accordingly allowed, and the order for payment of medical expenses of $156.45 set aside, and replaced with an order to pay medical expenses in the sum of $93.00.

Solicitors:
A J Bailey, Christchurch
Crown Solicitor, Christchurch

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, Mr M appealed against his conviction for driving with excess blood alcohol, specifically challenging the order to pay medical expenses of $156.45. The appeal hinged on the interpretation and application of the law concerning the apportionment of medical expenses in such cases. The court considered the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Barr v Police [2009] NZSC 109, which provided clarity on how medical expenses should be allocated between the offender and the state.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Supreme Court's ruling in Barr v Police necessitated a revision of the amount Mr M was ordered to pay. The court needed to determine if the correct application of the Supreme Court's decision would result in a reduction of the medical expenses payable by Mr M. The resolution of this issue required an analysis of the Supreme Court's reasoning and its implications for the present case.

In its judgment, the court found that the Supreme Court's decision in Barr v Police did indeed necessitate a reduction in the amount of medical expenses Mr M was ordered to pay. By applying the principles set out in Barr, the court calculated that the appropriate amount of medical expenses payable by Mr M should be $93.00, rather than the initially ordered $156.45. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the original order for payment of $156.45, and replaced it with an order for Mr M to pay $93.00 in medical expenses.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established