[1] Rylee Nattrass pleaded guilty to one charge of driving with excess breath alcohol.1 Her application of a discharge without conviction was declined by the presiding Judge.2 Ms Nattrass appeals.

Background

[2] Ms Nattrass was at a family barbeque near Winton on 8 December 2023. She had been drinking vodka RTD stubbies but ceased drinking around 9:30 pm. Around midnight she was asked by her father’s friend to drive him home. Others had advised him against walking down a rural road at night. While acknowledging that this was a terrible choice, in an affidavit filed for sentencing, Ms Nattrass deposed “I felt level-headed and competent, as some hours had passed since my last drink. I also felt I was the most sober and felt obliged to do this favour for my father’s friend”.

[3] Around 12:12 am on 9 December 2023, Ms Nattrass was driving on Winton Substation Road, with her father’s friend as a passenger when she was stopped at a Police checkpoint. An evidential breath test revealed her breath alcohol level was 701 micrograms (mcg) of alcohol per breath.

[4] Ms Nattrass entered a prompt guilty plea and applied to be discharged without conviction. Her sentencing affidavit confirmed she was 18 years old as at the date of the offending, that she had been Head Girl at her High School where she achieved academic excellence and where she had engaged in a number of community activities. She confirmed that she was now in her second year of Law and Criminal Justice degrees at the University of Canterbury, achieving outstanding academic results. Her affidavit expressed her remorse, addressed her learnings from the Right Track programme she had completed and confirmed she had made a $700 donation to that programme.

1 Land Transport Act 1998, s 56(1); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
2 Police v Nattrass [2024] NZDC 9630.

[5] Her affidavit recorded her concern that a conviction would hamper her future choices and potential, and, in particular, would negatively impact her ability to obtain scholarships, employment and to travel.

[6] In support of her application to be discharged Mr Ross, for Ms Nattrass, had filed several character references and authorities.

District Court decision

[7] In assessing the gravity of the offending, the Judge referred to observations of the Supreme Court that drink driving is “very serious offending”.3 The Judge considered the seriousness of the appellant’s offence was reduced because she had stopped drinking hours before she drove, she had not intended to drive…

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 Nattrass v The King

Details

AGLC: Nattrass v The King [2024] NZHC 2091
Case: [2024] NZHC 2091
Decision Date: 30 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rylee Ann Nattrass appealed against her conviction for driving with excess breath alcohol, challenging the District Court's decision to deny her a discharge without conviction. The High Court assessed the gravity of the offence, noting mitigating factors such as her age, the absence of prior convictions, and her participation in the Right Track programme. The court found the gravity of the offence to be low to moderate rather than moderate as assessed by the District Court. The High Court also examined the consequences of a conviction, considering its impact on her education, employment prospects, and travel plans. Given the additional evidence of a fully funded internship in Washington DC, which requires a clean criminal record, the court concluded that the consequences of a conviction were out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence. The appeal was allowed, and Nattrass was discharged without conviction.

Orders