McGregor v Police - [2023] NZHC 3118

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2023-409-130

[2023] NZHC 3118

BETWEEN
COREY MCGREGOR

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 7 September 2023

Appearances:

J Lucas for the Appellant

C M Hallaway for the respondent

Judgment:

3 November 2023

Reissued:

4 December 2023

JUDGMENT OF HARLAND J

Introduction

[1] Corey McGregor appeals Judge Couch’s decision from 4 July 2023 re- sentencing him in respect of a charge of refusing to provide a blood specimen to an enforcement officer1 by imposing a mandatory period of disqualification under s 65 of the Land Transport Act 1998 (LTA).2 When Mr McGregor was originally sentenced on 19 July 2022, the Judge had disqualified him for a period of one year and three months. Mr McGregor contends that the Judge was wrong to grant the Police application to correct his sentence under s 180 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (CPA) and to sentence him to indefinite disqualification under s 65 of the LTA.

1 Land Transport Act 1998, s 60(1)(a); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
2 Police v McGregor [2023] NZDC 13943.

MCGREGOR v POLICE [2023] NZHC 3118 [3 November 2023]

[2] I have decided to allow the appeal. This judgment sets out my reasons for doing so.

Background

[3]Mr McGregor is currently 26 years of age.

[4] On 21 December 2020, Mr McGregor was convicted in the Christchurch District Court of driving while disqualified. He was then 23 years old. On 18 October 2021, he was again convicted in the Christchurch District Court of driving while disqualified.

[5] On 1 November 2021 a number plate was stolen from a vehicle in Cashmere. On 13 November 2021, a BMW was stolen from a New Brighton address.

[6] On 25 November 2021, Mr McGregor drove the stolen BMW, which had attached to it the stolen licence plate. The summary of facts records that he had been involved in multiple driving complaints around the Christchurch area before heading north towards Blenheim. On the road, Mr McGregor was seen travelling at excess speed.

[7] The Police were unable to pursue the vehicle as it fled north on State Highway 1. On two occasions, Police patrol units attempted to deploy road spikes, which were unsuccessful. Near Wharanui, a Police patrol was successful in spiking Mr McGregor’s vehicle. Undeterred, Mr McGregor continued to drive the vehicle on three flat tyres for approximately 25 km.

[8] Unsurprisingly, this destroyed the integrity of the tyres, leaving three with no rubber and practically disintegrating the rims. The summary of facts records that the integrity of the vehicle was so badly affected that the airbags were activated and deployed inside. This caused the vehicle to come to a stop on the side of the road where Mr McGregor was subsequently arrested.

[9] Mr McGregor was taken to the Blenheim Police station where he underwent a compulsory impairment test for drugs. He did not satisfactorily complete the test and was subsequently requested to…

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 McGregor v Police

Details

AGLC: McGregor v Police [2023] NZHC 3118
Case: [2023] NZHC 3118
Decision Date: 3 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Corey McGregor appeals the decision of Judge Couch, who imposed an indefinite disqualification on Mr McGregor under s 65 of the Land Transport Act 1998 (LTA) by correcting the sentence under s 180 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (CPA). Mr McGregor argues that the Judge should not have exercised his discretion to correct the original sentence because it prejudices him. The appeal raises issues of whether the sentence was imposed erroneously and whether the Judge exercised his discretion to correct the sentence properly. The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the indefinite disqualification order imposed by the District Court Judge. The Court reinstated the original sentence of disqualification for a period of one year and nine months imposed by Judge Couch on 19 July 2022. The Court found that the District Court Judge did not consider all relevant matters when exercising his discretion to impose the original disqualification required by law at the time of sentencing. The delay in bringing the application to amend under s 180, coupled with the opportunity for Mr McGregor to make an application under s 94 of the LTA, favoured the application to correct being declined. The Court is mindful that the s 94 argument is yet to be run and it may not succeed, but the opportunity to make the application in the view of the Court is what justice required on the facts of this case.

Orders