Morrell v Police - [2014] NZHC 856

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

CRI-2014-483-00003 [2014] NZHC 856

BETWEEN
TED TAHITI MORRELL

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 15 April 2014

Appearances:

D M Goodlet for appellant
L C Rowe for respondent

Judgment:

30 April 2014

JUDGMENT OF CLIFFORD J

[1] On 12 November 2013 the appellant, Mr Morrell, was convicted after a defended hearing of one charge of driving while disqualified (third or subsequent), one charge of dangerous driving, and one of failing to stop for blue and red flashing lights. Mr Morrell now seeks leave to appeal against the decision of Judge Moran to sentence him to one year and nine months’ imprisonment. Mr Morrell says that sentence was manifestly excessive.

Leave

[2] Mr Morrell was sentenced on 13 November 2013. Any appeal was due to be filed by 11 December 2013. Mr Morrell’s appeal was not filed until 11 March 2014.

[3] The Crown acknowledged that Mr Morrell had had difficulties obtaining advice and representation to bring this appeal, particularly with the Christmas holiday period approaching. Ms Goodlet, his counsel for this appeal, did not
represent him at his defended hearing and sentencing.

MORRELL v POLICE [2014] NZHC 856 [30 April 2014]

[4] The Crown took no issue with the delay and did not regard itself as prejudiced by it. The Crown consented to leave being granted. In those circumstances, I grant leave accordingly.

Circumstances of the offending.

[5] Mr Morrell is 25 years old. He was a patched member of the Mongrel Mob until a year ago. He has since left the gang and has positive references from his employer. He has nine previous convictions for driving while disqualified, the last in May 2012, and one for driving whilst his licence was suspended or revoked.

[6] At 5.40pm on 3 July 2013, Mr Morrell was driving on a 50 km/h section of State Highway 1 in Bulls. Mr Morrell, his brother and his two nieces aged 8 and 2 were in the car. Mr Morrell was a disqualified driver at the time.

[7] Police attempted to stop his car because its rear lights were not on. Mr Morrell did not stop when police activated their blue and red flashing lights. Instead he turned off the highway and accelerated, exceeding the speed limit and reaching speeds in excess of 130 km/h. Police gave chase but lost sight of the car. A short time later police found the car had left the road and rolled onto its roof. None of the occupants were hurt in the crash.

[8] After the accident, Mr Morrell left the car and hid from the police. When he was spotted by a policeman he fled the scene.

The challenged decision

[9] The Judge adopted a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment for driving while disqualified. The Judge then imposed three months’ cumulative imprisonment on the dangerous driving charge. In addition, the Judge imposed a 12 month disqualification period on the driving while disqualified charge, and three months’…

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 Morrell v Police

Details

AGLC: Morrell v Police [2014] NZHC 856
Case: [2014] NZHC 856
Decision Date: 30 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the appellant, Ted Tahiti Morrell, appealed against the sentence imposed by Judge Moran. Mr Morrell was sentenced to one year and nine months’ imprisonment for driving while disqualified, dangerous driving, and failing to stop for blue and red flashing lights. The appeal was against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The Crown acknowledged the delay in filing the appeal and did not object to the grant of leave, which was accordingly granted.

The legal issues in the case were whether the starting point sentence of 18 months for driving while disqualified was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient credit to personal mitigating factors. The court examined the principles of sentencing for driving while disqualified, which consider the maximum sentence prescribed by law for the offence, the level of sentencing customarily observed for that offence, the seriousness of the conduct, and the personal circumstances of the offender.

The court held that the starting point sentence of 18 months was appropriate, considering the number of previous convictions for driving while disqualified and the frequency of the offending. The court also found that the sentencing judge did not err in not providing a reduction in sentence for personal mitigating factors, as Mr Morrell showed no remorse and was at high risk of re-offending. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of 21 months was upheld as not manifestly excessive.

Orders