Marshall v Police - [2024] NZHC 3785

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2024-443-46 [2024] NZHC 3785

BETWEEN
KARN MARSHALL

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 11 December 2024

Appearances:

N Laird for Appellant

H Bullock for Respondent

Judgment:

11 December 2024

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 December 2024 at 4 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: .

MARSHALL v POLICE [2024] NZHC 3785 [11 December 2024]

[1] Karn Marshall pleaded guilty in the New Plymouth District Court to a charge of careless driving,1 four charges of driving while suspended,2 two charges of possessing cannabis for supply,3 a charge of offering to sell that drug,4 two charges of unlawfully possessing a firearm and ammunition,5 and two charges of possessing methamphetamine.6 He was sentenced by Judge G F Hikaka to 18 months’ imprisonment with leave to apply for home detention and disqualified from driving for one year and one day.7 Mr Marshall was subsequently resentenced to six months’ home detention.8 The disqualification period was not amended. Mr Marshall now appeals the length of that disqualification.

The facts

[2] Because the appeal is confined to the length of the disqualification, it is only necessary to set out the circumstances of the driving charges in respect of which the order was made.

[3] On 5 December 2023, when driving while suspended, Mr Marshall mounted a curb, and crashed into a tree. He was summonsed to appear on 20 December 2023 on charges of driving while suspended and dangerous driving.

[4] On 16 December, Mr Marshall again drove while suspended. He was stopped by police due to his speeding. A further summons to appear on 17 January 2024 in relation to a second charge of driving while suspended was served on him the same day.

[5] On both 31 December 2023 and 27 January 2024, Mr Marshall again drove while suspended.

1      Land Transport Act 1998, s 37(1). Maximum penalty: $3,000.
2      Land Transport Act 1998, s 32(1)(c) and 32(3). Maximum penalty: three months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $4,500. The court must order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for six months or more.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f). Maximum penalty: eight years’ imprisonment.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(e) and 6(2)(c). Maximum penalty: eight years’ imprisonment.
5      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1). Maximum penalty: four years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding
$5,000.
6      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(a) and (2). Maximum penalty: six months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $1,000.
7      Police v Marshall [2024] NZDC 23296.
8      Marshall v Department of Corrections [2024] NZDC 26647.

District Court decision

[6] The Judge noted that Mr Marshall had been convicted of multiple offences committed over a lengthy period, some while on restrictive bail. The Judge held it was clear Mr Marshall had been running a commercial…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Marshall v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NZHC 3785
Decision Date: 11 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Marshall v Police concerns an appeal by Karn Marshall against the length of his disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver's licence, imposed as part of his sentence for multiple driving and drug-related offences. The appeal was heard by MANDER J in the High Court of New Zealand at New Plymouth. Mr Marshall had initially been sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, later reduced to six months' home detention, and disqualified from driving for one year and one day. He appealed the disqualification period, arguing it was excessive given his recent acquisition of a restricted driver's licence before sentencing.

The legal issues in this case revolved around the appropriate length of the disqualification period for driving while suspended, considering statutory minimums and the principles of proportionality and deterrence. The court needed to determine whether the original disqualification period imposed by the District Court was correctly applied and, if not, what a more appropriate period would be.

MANDER J noted that the District Court had likely misunderstood the minimum disqualification period for a first or second offence of driving while suspended, which is six months under the Land Transport Act 1998. The court considered various factors, including the repetitive nature of Mr Marshall's offending, his disregard for court orders, and the need for deterrence. However, it also took into account Mr Marshall's youth, his rehabilitative prospects, and his recent acquisition of a restricted driver's licence. Balancing these considerations, the court concluded that a disqualification period of 10 months was appropriate. This period adequately reflected the seriousness of Mr Marshall's repeated breaches while also preserving his opportunity to obtain a restricted licence.

In conclusion, the High Court quashed the original disqualification period of one year and one day and replaced it with a 10-month disqualification period. This decision ensures that the sentence is proportionate to the offence while considering the broader context of Mr Marshall's offending and personal circumstances.

Orders