Milligan v Police

[2015] NZHC 1661

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI 2015-485-33 [2015] NZHC 1661

BETWEEN

SAMANTHA MILLIGAN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	14 July 2015
Counsel:	K I Jefferies for Appellant S W P Woods for Respondent
Judgment:	16 July 2015

JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J

[1]      Ms Milligan appeals the decision of the District Court declining to discharge her without conviction on two charges of driving whilst her licence was suspended.1

[2]      Ms Milligan had a suspended licence due to accumulation of demerit points whilst a learner driver.  This had in fact happened twice.  She was suspended from

31 May 2014   to   30 August 2014   and   then   again   from   17 January 2015   to

16 April 2015.  On each occasion she had acquired 100 demerit points.

[3]      During  the  second   period   of  suspension   she  was   found  driving  on

2 March 2015 in Napier, and then again three weeks later on 23 March 2015 in Palmerston North.  It must immediately be observed this somewhat stunning record of ignoring restrictions (2 x – 100 demerit points; 2 x – driving whilst suspended) so early in a driving career provides an extremely poor base from which to seek a

discharge without conviction.

1      Police v Milligan [2015] NZDC 9545.

MILLIGAN v NZ POLICE [2015] NZHC 1661 [16 July 2015]

[4]      The  application  was  advanced  in  the  District  Court  on  the  basis  that Ms Milligan had now recognised the possible consequences of her actions and was committed  to  reform.    The  direct  and  indirect  consequences  said  to  make  a conviction (with its consequent mandatory disqualification) out of all proportion to the conviction were:

(a)      the potential impact on her chosen career of engineering.  Ms Milligan had just started studying towards this.  It was speculatively submitted that these convictions might impact on the possibility of being registered;

(b)      the difficulties in caring for her two year old child;

(c)       the  difficulties  with  transporting  the  child  to  child  care  whilst

Ms Milligan studied (two days a week); and

(d)      the  impact  on  her  job  in  Palmerston North  (Ms Milligan  lives  in

Porirua).

[5]      Judge Mills understandably rejected the primary argument about impact on her chosen career.  It is not a point advanced again on the appeal.  Concerning the other matters the Judge did not consider they were out of the ordinary and fell some way short of meeting the stringent statutory test.

[6]      On appeal I inquired further into the job situation, as the loss of employment for a single mother with a young child is a significant consequence that needs to be carefully weighed.   As it transpires her study (which is in Wellington) will soon reach a stage where the employment cannot anyway continue.

[7]      That matter having reduced in significance, I can see no basis on which it could be said the Judge erred in the exercise of his discretion, or was wrong in his evaluation of the factors.

[8]      It was not a compelling case for a discharge, the Judge considered all relevant matters and there is no basis on appeal to disturb the decision.

[9]      The appeal is dismissed.

Simon France J

Solicitors:

Jefferies Law, Wellington

Luke Cunningham & Clere, Crown Solicitors, Wellington