Palu v Police - [2015] NZHC 842

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-485-000110 [2015] NZHC 842

BETWEEN
FALEALUPE PALU

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 28 April 2015

Counsel:

D D Vincent for Appellant
I R Murray for Respondent

Judgment:

28 April 2015

JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] I am dismissing Mr Palu’s appeal from a sentence imposed by Judge Butler in

the Hutt Valley District Court on 17 December 2014.

[2] Judge Butler sentenced Mr Palu on a charge of driving whilst disqualified. Mr Palu was sentenced to four months’ community detention commencing on 21
January 2015 and disqualified from driving for 12 months and one day from 17

December 2014.

[3] Mr Palu appeals the disqualification element of the sentence and asks that a community-based sentence be imposed in its place.

[4] In my assessment, the sentence imposed by Judge Butler was appropriate.

PALU v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZHC 842 [28 April 2015]

District Court decision

[5] When he appeared before Judge Butler, Mr Palu sought a community-based sentence instead of a period of disqualification. That submission was based on s 94(1) of the Land Transport Act 1998 (the Act) which provides:

94 Substitution of community-based sentences

(1) This section applies if—

(a) the offender has previously been ordered on conviction for an offence to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence; and

(b) the court, having regard to—

(i) the circumstances of the case and of the offender;
and

(ii) the effectiveness or otherwise of a previous order of disqualification made in respect of the offender; and

(iii) the likely effect on the offender of a further order of disqualification; and

(iv) the interests of the public,—

considers that it would be inappropriate to order that the offender be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence; and

(c) the court considers that it would be appropriate to sentence the offender to a community-based sentence in accordance with Part 2 of the Sentencing Act 2002.

…

[6] Judge Butler explained his reasons for declining to apply s 94(1) of the Act in the following way:1

… [Y]ou have a terrible driving history, you have had the benefit of not being disqualified in the past on conviction for similar offending, and you have 14 previous convictions for driving while disqualified. The number of convictions does not matter, but yours have been accumulated rapidly and recently. I think, in the interests of road safety, you should not be driving or permitted to drive for the period of the disqualification.

1 Police v Palu DC Hutt Valley CRI-2014-096-897, 17 December 2014 at [5].

Grounds of appeal

[7] In his helpful submissions Mr Vincent, counsel for Mr Palu, condensed the grounds of appeal to four issues which I will address under the following headings:

(1) Mr Palu’s driving history;

(2) Road safety and public interest; (3) Effectiveness of previous orders; (4) Effect on employment.

[8] Before examining the four grounds of appeal advanced on Mr Palu’s behalf, I will…

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 Palu 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: [2015] NZHC 842
Decision Date: 28 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Falealupe Palu versus New Zealand Police pertains to the sentencing of Mr Palu, who was convicted of driving while disqualified. The District Court imposed a sentence of four months’ community detention and disqualified Mr Palu from driving for 12 months and one day. Mr Palu appealed the disqualification element, arguing for a community-based sentence instead. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding the District Court's decision appropriate. The legal issues included the accuracy of Mr Palu's driving history, the relevance of road safety and public interest, the effectiveness of previous orders, and the impact on Mr Palu's employment. The High Court found that despite Mr Palu's extensive driving history and the ineffectiveness of previous disqualification orders, the District Court's decision was justified considering the circumstances of the case and the interests of the public. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence upheld.

The High Court examined the grounds of appeal, which focused on Mr Palu's driving history, the effectiveness of previous orders, road safety, and the impact on his employment. Mr Palu had a significant criminal history, including multiple convictions for driving while disqualified. The Court acknowledged an error in the number of convictions mentioned by the District Court but concluded it did not affect the outcome. The High Court also noted that the recent convictions did not involve recklessness or carelessness but emphasised the importance of public safety. The Court found that Judge Butler had properly weighed all relevant factors under the Land Transport Act 1998 and the Sentencing Act 2002. The ineffectiveness of previous disqualification orders did not automatically warrant a community-based sentence. The Court concluded that the District Court's decision was reasonable and appropriate, considering all relevant factors.

Orders