Maraj v Police - [2015] NZHC 3055

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-404-295 [2015] NZHC 3055

BETWEEN
JAMESON AJODHYA MARAJ

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 9 November 2015

Appearances:

P J Davison QC and H Steele for Appellant
R Gibson for Respondent

Judgment:

4 December 2015

JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Whata on
4 December 2015 at 10.00 a.m., pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:

Solicitors:
Minter Ellison Rudd Watts, Auckland
Meredith Connell, Crown Solicitors, Auckland
Copy to:
P Davison QC, Auckland

MARAJ v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZHC 3055 [4 December 2015]

Introduction

[1] Mr Maraj crashed his car while reading a text. He was subject to a restricted licence with a zero drinking driving limit. When tested, his blood alcohol level exceeded the adult threshold.

[2] Mr Maraj now appeals against convictions for drink driving and careless use of a motor vehicle on the basis, in short, that the judge overstated the seriousness of his offending while under-estimating the implications of conviction for him. He is a young man, has an otherwise exemplary personal history and academic record with significant prospects for advanced medical research and study. But medical schools here and overseas take into account criminal convictions for the purpose of placement. The risk to Mr Maraj is that he may not be able to continue his studies of medicine at the highest levels for which he would otherwise be eligible. His overseas travel may also be affected, though I consider this to be a minor consideration.

[3] The central issue then is whether the risk of Mr Maraj’s exclusion from advanced medical studies presented by the convictions is out of all proportion to his drink driving and careless use of a motor vehicle.

Background

[4] Mr Maraj pleaded guilty to charges of driving a motor vehicle carelessly and driving with excess blood alcohol level of 96 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. Judge Hinton in the District Court described the facts in this way:1

[6] So dealing first with the facts, at about 4.40 am on 16 April you were driving your BMW north on State Highway 1 on the Northern Motorway. You were observed weaving across three lanes of traffic. As you passed the Oteha Valley Road off ramp you drifted onto some grass area on the left shoulder, you swerved to the right and over-corrected. You crossed three lanes of motorway and collided with the concrete centre median barrier. You collided with such force that a segment of the barrier was pushed over into the southbound lanes. You were taken to hospital with a minor cut to your hand. In explanation you told the police that you were texting and driving: “I lost concentration.”

1 Police v Maraj [2015] NZDC 17515.

[5] The Judge also referred to the affidavit evidence produced by Mr Maraj. The

Judge explained:

[9] Now briefly, you had gone in the evening in question for a break at…

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 Maraj v Police

Details

AGLC: Maraj v Police [2015] NZHC 3055
Case: [2015] NZHC 3055
Decision Date: 4 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr Maraj, appealed against his convictions for drink driving and careless use of a motor vehicle. He argued that the consequences of his conviction would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending. The court found that the offending was serious but was mitigated by Mr Maraj's youth, low culpability, and overall good character. The court accepted that there was a real and appreciable risk that the convictions may have an impact on Mr Maraj's career in medicine and his travel plans, but it found that the consequences were not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending. The appeal was dismissed. The court commended Mr Maraj for his academic achievements and excellent personal character, and noted that he was deserving of the opportunity to study medicine if he maintained his high academic and personal standards.

Orders