Oldfield v Police - [2013] NZHC 3206

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2013-404-000277 [2013] NZHC 3206

BETWEEN SCOTT KEVIN OLDFIELD Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 3 December 2013

Appearances: B Ward for Appellant
L Mills for Respondent

Judgment: 3 December 2013

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF ANDREWS J [Appeal against sentence]

This judgment is delivered by me on 3 December 2013 at am/pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

..................................................... Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Gellert Ivanson Limited, St Heliers, Auckland (Appellant) Meredith Connell, Auckland (Respondent)

OLDFIELD v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2013] NZHC 3206 [3 December 2013]

Introduction

[1] The appellant has appealed against the sentence imposed on him by Judge Kiernan in the Waitakere District Court on 27 June 2013, after he pleaded guilty to a charge of driving with excess breath alcohol causing injury.1 It was the appellant’s second drink-driving conviction, he having been convicted on a charge of driving with excess breath alcohol on 21 April 2009, in respect of offending on 21 March
2009. The appellant was ordered to pay reparation of $1000, and disqualified from driving for 12 months. I note that the disqualification was suspended by the District Court on 14 August 2013, so the appellant would appear to have completed approximately six weeks of the disqualification.

Facts

[2] The relevant facts are that on 31 March 2012, at about 10 pm, the appellant was driving on state highway 16 at Waterview, Auckland. He collided with another car, which then hit a concrete barrier and veered off the road. As a result, the driver of that car suffered a fractured wrist. The appellant was stopped a short time later. He showed signs of recent alcohol consumption. A breath test showed a breath alcohol level of 637 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath.

District Court proceedings

[3] The grounds of the appellant’s appeal are founded on alleged delays in moving the charges against him through the District Court, and changes in the charges brought against him. It is therefore necessary to set out the procedural history of the matter, as set out in the appellant’s submissions.

[4] The appellant first appeared in Court on 23 April 2012, and was remanded on bail to 14 May 2012, with a condition that he not drive, except for work purposes. The appellant appeared in Court again on 14 and 28 May, and again on 11 June
2012. A not guilty plea was entered on 25 June 2012, which is when the present charge was laid, and a status hearing was set down for 8 October 2012. That hearing

did not proceed, as the police were not ready, and the status hearing was adjourned to

29 October 2012.

[5] It appears that the appellant was first charged with driving with excess breath alcohol (simpliciter), and failing to stop to ascertain injury. The appellant did not accept that he had failed to stop, and says that the police agreed to withdraw that charge if he pleaded guilty to the…

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 Oldfield v Police

Details

AGLC: Oldfield v Police [2013] NZHC 3206
Case: [2013] NZHC 3206
Decision Date: 3 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Scott Kevin Oldfield appealed against the sentence imposed on him by Judge Kiernan in the Waitakere District Court. Oldfield had pleaded guilty to driving with excess breath alcohol causing injury, resulting in the driver of another car suffering a fractured wrist. The District Court ordered Oldfield to pay reparation of $1000 and disqualified him from driving for 12 months, which was later suspended. Oldfield's grounds for appeal were based on alleged delays in moving the charges against him through the District Court and changes in the charges brought against him. The court considered whether the Judge was right to conclude that a conviction and discharge was not appropriate and that Oldfield should be convicted and subject to the mandatory disqualification.

The court held that the Judge did not err in refusing to convict and discharge Oldfield, as he had a high breath alcohol level, and the driver of the other car was injured as a result of his offending. However, the court considered whether, pursuant to s 85 of the Land Transport Act, the disqualification might have been back-dated. The court concluded that it was appropriate to consider making an order to backdate the commencement of Oldfield's disqualification by a period of four months, so that it takes effect as from 1 August 2013, rather than as from the date of the appeal. The court dismissed Oldfield's appeal against his conviction but ordered that the 12-month disqualification period would commence from 1 August 2013.

Orders