M v Police HC Whangarei CRI 2008-488-49

Case

[2008] NZHC 1818

21 November 2008

No judgment structure available for this case.

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI 2008-488-049

BETWEEN  M

Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:         21 November 2008

Counsel:         Appellant in person

N J Dore for Respondent

Judgment:      21 November 2008

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF HEATH J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, OPO Box 146, Whangarei
Copy to:

Appellant in person

M V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC WHA CRI 2008-488-049  21 November 2008

[1]      Mr M   was convicted, in the District Court at Dargaville, on a charge of driving with an excess breath alcohol concentration. He pleaded guilty to the charge. Mr M   came within the category of person who has three or more previous convictions for drink driving related offending.

[2]      In those circumstances, s 56(4)(b) of the Land Transport Act 1998 requires a

Judge, on conviction, to impose a disqualification period of more than one year.

[3]      Judge McDonald sentenced Mr M   to a term of community work of 350 hours.  He disqualified him from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 18 months starting immediately.  There has been no suspension of the order pending appeal.

[4]      Mr M   has submitted that a one year disqualification ought to have been imposed.   He informs me of difficulties which he will face in having to re-sit his licence and to pay for that in the event that the current sentence remains intact.

[5]      As I have explained to Mr M  , the difficulty is that I can only interfere with a sentence imposed by the District Court Judge if it were manifestly excessive.

[6]      Mr M   was fortunate, to some degree, in the sentence of 350 hours community work imposed.  Although it would have been possible for the Judge to impose a disqualification period of less than 18 months, so long as it complied with the statutory provisions, I cannot say that the disqualification period imposed was clearly excessive.

[7]      For those reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

P R Heath J

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0