Munn v Police - [2014] NZHC 2309

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI-2014-443-021 [2014] NZHC 2309

BETWEEN
REO REBECCA MUNN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 22 September 2014

Counsel:

K M Marriner for appellant
B C Sweetman for respondent

Judgment:

23 September 2014

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J

Introduction

[1] Ms Munn pleaded guilty to one charge of driving a motor vehicle with an excess breath alcohol level of 985 micrograms. This is her seventh conviction for driving with excess breath alcohol (in addition to one conviction for refusing to provide a blood specimen).

[2] Ms Munn was sentenced by Judge Roberts in the Hawera District Court on

16 July 2014 to 12 months’ imprisonment.1 She has appealed that sentence on the basis that the Court gave insufficient weight to mitigating factors, and the positive prospects for rehabilitation. On appeal, it was argued that a sentence of home
detention was appropriate.

1 New Zealand Police v Munn DC Hawera CRI-2014-021-298, 16 July 2014.

MUNN v POLICE [2014] NZHC 2309 [23 September 2014]

Facts and previous history

[3] Ms Munn is a 50 year old solo mother. She was uncooperative and abusive when apprehended by Police at 6.50 pm on 11 April 2014. She has 108 prior convictions, including an extensive history of relevant offending:

(a) January 1982: excess breath alcohol;

(b) March 1992: two convictions for driving with excess blood alcohol in

October and December 1991;

(c) November 1992: unlicensed driving with excess breath alcohol;

(d)January 1997: excess breath alcohol – also convicted in relation to this incident of careless or inconsiderate driving causing death or injury on a road;

(e) January 2009: excess breath alcohol; and

(f) April 2009: refusal to provide blood specimen (sentenced to

10 months’ imprisonment).

[4] There have also been convictions for refusing to accompany an enforcement officer and assaulting Police and traffic officers in the execution of their duty.

The District Court Decision

[5] Judge Roberts noted the details of the present offending, Ms Munn’s lengthy criminal history, her re-engagement with alcohol and drug counselling and her numerous opportunities for rehabilitation. The Judge also noted that Ms Munn had responded well to her last sentence of community work.

[6] Having regard to the very high level of breath alcohol, the proximity of her last conviction and the lack of deterrence of earlier sentences, the Judge adopted a starting point of 10 months’ imprisonment. The Judge elevated this by six months to reflect Ms Munn’s previous relevant convictions and “to a lesser degree” her

“appalling traffic history”. The end sentence of 16 months was reduced to

12 months to reflect Ms Munn’s guilty plea.

[7] The Judge considered that home detention was not appropriate given the serious and repeated nature of Ms Munn’s offending and the ineffectiveness of rehabilitative processes.

Submissions on appeal

[8] For Ms Munn, Ms Marriner submitted that the Judge gave insufficient weight to Ms Munn’s re-engagement with alcohol and drug counselling, her engagement with social services, her positive response to a…

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 Munn 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: [2014] NZHC 2309
Decision Date: 23 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand considered an appeal by Rebecca Munn against her sentence of 12 months' imprisonment for driving with an excess breath alcohol level. Munn, who had a history of similar convictions, argued that the sentence was excessive and that home detention would be a more appropriate form of punishment. The District Court had rejected home detention, considering the seriousness of Munn's repeated offences and the need for a strong deterrent. The High Court, however, found that while the District Court's decision to impose a custodial sentence was appropriate, the comment suggesting automatic imprisonment for future convictions was inappropriate as it could limit judicial discretion in future cases.

The primary legal issue in this case was whether the District Court had erred in sentencing Munn to 12 months' imprisonment instead of home detention, considering her repeated drink-driving offences and the mitigating factors presented. The Court had to determine if the District Court judge had applied an incorrect principle, failed to consider relevant factors, or was plainly wrong in imposing the custodial sentence. The Court also had to consider the new information regarding the impact of Munn's imprisonment on her children, and whether this warranted a change in the sentence.

The High Court concluded that the District Court's decision to impose a custodial sentence was justified by Munn's extensive history of drink-driving offences. The Court emphasised the importance of deterrence for recidivist offenders and noted that a custodial sentence was likely the only realistic alternative in such cases. The Court found that the District Court judge had appropriately considered the mitigating factors, including Munn's engagement with alcohol and drug counselling and her previous response to community work. The Court also determined that the new information about the impact of Munn's imprisonment on her children did not warrant altering the sentence. The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the District Court's decision.

Orders