Matiu v Police - [2012] NZHC 1821

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-404-195 [2012] NZHC 1821
DAVID ROBERT MATIU
Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent

Hearing: 24 July 2012

Appearances: The appellant in person
S Locke for the respondent

Judgment: 25 July 2012

JUDGMENT OF CLIFFORD J

[1] The appellant, Mr David Matiu, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced by Judge Andrée Wiltens in the District Court at Manukau to 100 hours’ community work and two years’ disqualification, on a charge of dangerous driving under s 35(1)(b) of the Land Transport Act 1998. Mr Matiu now appeals against the two year disqualification element of his sentence, arguing that that period of disqualification was manifestly excessive.

Facts

[2] As recorded in the summary of facts to which Mr Matiu pleaded guilty, on
16 March 2012 he was driving a car and stopped for a red light. When the light turned green he accelerated heavily causing the rear wheels of the car to lose traction

MATIU v POLICE HC AK CIV-2012-404-195 [25 July 2012]

as he turned left. He continued to drive along the road, following closely behind another vehicle. At the next intersection Mr Matiu swerved suddenly into the left lane. His speed was checked by a radar at 117 kilometres per hour.

[3] Mr Matiu stopped for a red light in the outside lane where police also stopped and instructed him to pull over once the traffic lights turned green. Mr Matiu gave “the finger” to the police and accelerated heavily, going forward and turning left, where his speed was checked in excess of 100 kilometres per hour.

[4] Police activated their lights and siren which they left on for the remainder of the pursuit. Mr Matiu was eventually stopped and arrested, but refused to get out of his car telling police to “fuck off” as he had done nothing wrong.

[5] The relevant area is residential and commercial, with roads of four lane width and a speed limit of 60 kilometres per hour. At the time the roads were dry with good visibility, cars parked on the side of the road, light to medium traffic and many pedestrians on the footpath. Mr Matiu overtook six vehicles during the pursuit.

[6] Mr Matiu now disputes elements of that summary of facts. As I explained to him in Court, given that that was the statement of facts he pleaded to, it is on the basis of those facts that I consider his appeal.

District Court decision

[7] In sentencing Mr Matiu, the Judge referred to the summary of facts to which Mr Matiu had pleaded guilty. He then noted Mr Matiu’s previous convictions. He acknowledged that Mr Matiu might be in danger of losing his job if he lost his licence. He then observed that a person “with this sort of record does not deserve to be driving on the roads with everybody else who does obey the laws of the land”, and imposed the now appealed sentenced. The Judge also sentenced Mr Matiu concurrently…

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 Matiu v Police

Details

AGLC: Matiu v Police [2012] NZHC 1821
Case: [2012] NZHC 1821
Decision Date: 25 July 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

David Robert Matiu appealed against the two-year disqualification from driving imposed by Judge Andrée Wiltens in the District Court at Manukau, on a charge of dangerous driving. Mr Matiu had pleaded guilty to the charge, and was sentenced to 100 hours of community work and two years’ disqualification. He argued that the two-year disqualification was manifestly excessive. The central legal issue was whether the two-year disqualification was an appropriate sentence for Mr Matiu’s dangerous driving offence, particularly in light of his previous convictions. The Court considered whether the District Court had appropriately balanced the need to deter Mr Matiu from further dangerous driving against the impact of the disqualification on his employment and family. The Court found that the District Court had over-estimated the significance of Mr Matiu’s relatively historic previous convictions when imposing the sentence. The Court concluded that a sentence of two years’ disqualification was manifestly excessive, and substituted a sentence of one year’s disqualification, considering Mr Matiu’s other sentence of 100 hours of community work. The Court’s decision was influenced by a comparison with a similar case, Waiwai v R, in which the Court of Appeal had upheld a two-year disqualification, but found that case to be considerably more serious than Mr Matiu’s offending.

Orders