Paikea v Police - [2013] NZHC 2466

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2013-488-000020

CRI-2013-488-000021 [2013] NZHC 2466

BETWEEN SELWYN JAMES PAIKEA Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 20 September 2013

Appearances: S K Ellis for Appellant
C M Gisler for Respondent

Judgment: 20 September 2013

ORAL JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Whangarei
Copy to: S K Ellis, Whangarei

PAIKEA v NZ POLICE [2013] NZHC 2466 [20 September 2013]

[1] Following a defended hearing in the District Court at Whangarei the appellant Mr Paikea was convicted on two charges of driving while suspended, two charges of providing false information, one of dangerous driving and one of failing to stop.

[2] On 27 June 2012 the appellant was the driver of a Mazda motor car stopped by police in Christchurch. His licence was taken from him. He was confirmed as a suspended driver.

[3] Then on 20 July 2012 he was the driver of a Ford motor car stopped by the police at Dargaville. Three weeks later he was the driver of a BMW motor car stopped by the police in Whangarei. In relation to that second incident the appellant drove off at speeds estimated at approximately 100 kilometres per hour in a 50 kilometre hour area. His driving was such that the police abandoned the chase. That led to the dangerous driving charge.

[4] Judge Duncan G Harvey sentenced Mr Paikea, the appellant, to 18 months’ imprisonment on the first incident of driving whilst suspended and disqualified him from driving for 12 months. In relation to the second incident of driving whilst suspended, he sentenced Mr Paikea to 12 months’ imprisonment cumulative and disqualified him from driving for a period of 18 months, to follow the expiry of the first disqualification.

[5] On the charge of dangerous driving the appellant was convicted and sentenced to one month’s imprisonment, concurrent. On the remaining charges he was convicted and discharged. The effective term of imprisonment was 30 months.

[6] Mr Paikea appealed against conviction and sentence. Counsel confirms the appeal against conviction is not to be pursued. It is withdrawn by leave.

[7] The appeal against sentence is pursued on the ground that the sentence of 30

months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive and that in this case a sentence of

20 months’ imprisonment or less would have been sufficient. Ms Ellis made the point that in sentencing of this nature where cumulative sentences have been imposed it is often in situations where there is drink driving offending as well as driving whilst disqualified. Counsel has referred to a number of decisions of this Court that have discussed recidivist drink drivers. Counsel notes the Crown relies on
the case of R v McQuillian1 and submits that that case reflects worse offending than

the present and also involved an offender with high breath and blood alcohol levels.

[8] To put the matter in context the maximum penalty for a third or subsequent offence of driving a motor vehicle while a driver licence’s is suspended is…

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 Paikea 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: [2013] NZHC 2466
Decision Date: 20 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Selwyn James Paikea appealed against his sentence for multiple driving-related offences, arguing that the 30-month imprisonment term was manifestly excessive. Paikea was convicted on multiple charges, including driving while suspended, providing false information, dangerous driving, and failing to stop. The District Court imposed a cumulative sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment, which Paikea challenged as disproportionate.

The court considered whether the cumulative sentence was appropriate given Paikea's extensive criminal history. Paikea had numerous previous convictions for similar offences, indicating a pattern of dangerous and irresponsible driving behaviour. The court acknowledged that Paikea's history of repeat offending and lack of remorse warranted a severe sentence to protect public safety. The court also noted that the maximum penalty for such offences could be up to four years in prison, making the 30-month sentence within a reasonable range.

The court found that the cumulative sentence was justified by Paikea's repeated and dangerous driving behaviour, which posed a significant risk to public safety. The court relied on precedents that supported the use of cumulative sentences for recidivist offenders to achieve an appropriate level of punishment and deterrence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment was confirmed.

Orders