Paranihi v Police

[2016] NZHC 69

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2015-419-000043 [2016] NZHC 69

BETWEEN

LARNIA LOUIS AROHA PARANIHI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	G D Prentice for Appellant J E Tarrant for Respondent
Judgment:	3 February 2016

JUDGMENT OF KEANE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 February 2016 at 3pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Public Defence Service, Hamilton

Crown Solicitor, Hamilton

PARANIHI v POLICE [2016] NZHC 69 [3 February 2016]

[1]      On 13 December 2014 Larnia Paranihi was apprehended driving her car in Ulster Street, Hamilton, when the proportion of alcohol in her breath exceeded 400 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath.  It was 1029 micrograms.  This was her third such offence within five years.

[2]      On 6 October 2015, as a result of a guilty plea that she had entered earlier, Ms Paranihi was sentenced by Judge P R Connell in the District Court, Hamilton, to

100 hours community work, to supervision for 12 months and to four months community detention.   Judge Connell also disqualified her indefinitely, as he was obliged to do, and, additionally, disqualified her for two years.

[3]      On this appeal against her sentence Ms Paranihi takes issue only with the two year finite term of disqualification; and, as the respondent concedes, in disqualifying her for that term as well as indefinitely the Judge exceeded his jurisdiction.  (As a result I excused counsel, at their request, from having to appear.)

[4]      Ms Paranihi’s offence, in the third or subsequent category, did on the face of it make her liable under s 56(4)(b) of the Land Transport Act 1998 to a minimum one year finite term of disqualification.  Section 56(4)(b) says:

the court must order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for more than 1 year.

[5]      Section  56(4)(b),  however,  is  subject  to  s  56(4A),  which  states  that “Subsection (4)(b) does not apply if an order is made under section 65”; and, as the Judge recognised, s 65(4) obliged him to disqualify Ms Paranihi indefinitely under s

65 because this was her third such offence within five years.

[6]      Consequently, the Judge did not come under the duty s 56(4)(b) imposes to disqualify Ms Paranihi for at least one year.   Section 56(4A) relieved him of that duty and denied him of the power to disqualify finitely which is inherent in that duty. In imposing the two year finite term, therefore, he exceeded his jurisdiction and that order must be, and is, quashed.1

[7]      I should also add that, in this case, the Judge’s duty to consider whether to commute the indefinite disqualification order he made under s 65 to an alcohol interlock licence disqualification order under s 65A2  had no practical significance, because he made a s 129 order confiscating Ms Paranihi’s car; and that is not in issue

on this appeal.

P.J. Keane J