Nottingham v Police - [2025] NZHC 3193

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2025-409-207

[2025] NZHC 3193

BETWEEN
THOMAS BARRY NOTTINGHAM

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 23 October 2025

Appearances:

E McClay and J D Bibby for Appellant S A Teki-Clark for Respondent

Judgment:

24 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF BOLDT J

(Sentence appeal)

[1] On 7 April 2025, the appellant, Thomas Nottingham, pleaded guilty to twelve charges of driving while suspended.1 On 12 April, Judge Couch sentenced him to six months’ community detention and disqualified him from driving for twelve months.2

[2] Mr Nottingham appeals against his sentence. While he argues the sentence of six months’ community detention was excessive, the more important part of the appeal concerns his disqualification. At sentencing Mr Nottingham asked the Judge to substitute a community-based sentence for the otherwise-mandatory disqualification. The Judge declined, and Mr Nottingham challenges that decision. Mr Teki-Clark, on behalf of the Police, does not oppose my reconsidering Mr Nottingham’s disqualification.

1 Land Transport Act 1998, s 32(1)(c) and (3). Maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or fine of $4,500, minimum disqualification of 6 months.
2 New Zealand Police v Nottingham [2025] NZDC 18909 [Decision under appeal].

NOTTINGHAM v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 3193 [24 October 2025]

Background

[3] On 27 September 2024, Mr Nottingham’s driver’s licence was suspended for three months after he accrued excess demerit points.3 On 28 November 2024, Police stopped Mr Nottingham’s vehicle. He admitted he was driving, acknowledged he was suspended and said he was on his way to work.

[4] Police then used Auror number plate recognition software to see if there was evidence he had been driving on other occasions over the previous 60 days. Auror identified another eleven instances. Instead of a single representative charge, Police laid twelve separate charges.

District Court sentencing

[5] Mr Nottingham is 33. The Judge noted Mr Nottingham has accrued infringements every year since he was 18 and that he typically committed multiple infringements at a time. The Judge observed that Mr Nottingham’s licence had been suspended eight times for excess demerit points; he said it was the largest number of suspensions he had ever seen.4

[6] In light of that history, the Judge assessed Mr Nottingham’s offending as among the most serious cases of its kind. He said he would “step back from imprisonment”, but that a substantial sentence would be required to achieve the purposes of the Sentencing Act 2002.5

[7] The Judge observed that the only mitigating factor available to Mr Nottingham was his plea of guilty and indicated he would reduce the otherwise-appropriate sentence by 20 per cent as a result.

[8] The Judge noted that Mr Nottingham had applied under s 94 of the Land Transport Act 1998 for the usually-mandatory disqualification to be replaced by a community-based sentence. He had recently taken up employment with a business

3 Land Transport Act, s 90. Decision under appeal, above n 2, at [1].
4 At [3].…

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 Nottingham v Police

Details

AGLC: Nottingham v Police [2025] NZHC 3193
Case: [2025] NZHC 3193
Decision Date: 24 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Thomas Nottingham, the appellant, has brought an appeal against the sentence imposed on him by Judge Couch, who found him guilty of twelve charges of driving while suspended. The appellant contests the six months’ community detention and, more importantly, the twelve-month driving disqualification imposed on him. He requests a community-based sentence instead of the disqualification. The respondent, the New Zealand Police, does not oppose the reconsideration of the disqualification. The legal issue in this case revolves around whether the District Court judge made an error in declining the appellant’s application to substitute a community-based sentence for the otherwise-mandatory disqualification. The court found that the District Court judge did not fully consider the four factors outlined in section 94(1)(b) of the Land Transport Act 1998, which includes the likely effect of further disqualification on the offender and the interests of the public. The High Court judge agreed with the respondent that there is a substantial public interest in keeping unsafe drivers off the road, but concluded that the public interest will be better served by ensuring the appellant remains in stable employment and receives assistance to consolidate the progress he has made with his mental health. The appeal is allowed, and the twelve-month driving disqualification is quashed and replaced with a sentence of six months’ supervision.

Orders