Patel v Police - [2025] NZHC 1424

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-154

[2025] NZHC 1424

BETWEEN
ISHAN BASHIR AHMED PATEL

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 20 May 2025

Appearances:

P Hamlin and D LeGallais for the appellant A Chan for the respondent

Judgment:

3 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF BLANCHARD J

[Appeal against conviction and sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 June 2025 at 1.00 pm Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Phil Hamlin Barrister, Auckland Kayes Fletcher Walker Ltd, Manukau

PATEL v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 1424 [3 June 2025]

[1] Mr Patel seeks to appeal against a decision of Judge G A Andrée Wiltens in the District Court at Manukau dated 3 February 2025.1 The decision dismisses Mr Patel’s appeal of a decision by Community Magistrate F Thomas dated 18 July 2024 declining to grant an application for discharge without conviction pursuant to s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002.2 The application related to a charge of dangerous driving,3 to which Mr Patel had pleaded guilty. Mr Patel needs leave to appeal because he filed his notice of appeal out of time and this is a second appeal.

[2] Mr Patel is 19 years’ old. He is studying for conjoint Bachelor of Commerce and Bachelor of Laws degree. He has no previous convictions.

The offending

[3] At around 6.50 pm on 10 March 2024, Mr Patel was observed by the Police Eagle helicopter driving at high speeds on State Highway 20 heading southbound. The speed limit on State Highway 20 is 100 kilometres per hour. He was travelling between 130 and 190 kilometres per hour, weaving in and out of traffic.

[4] Mr Patel exited State Highway 20 using the Puhinui Road exit and drove in the direction of Clendon Park using Roscommon Road. The speed limit on Roscommon Road and surrounding areas is 50 kilometres per hour. Mr Patel continued to drive at high speeds up to 150 kilometres per hour, performing multiple dangerous overtaking manoeuvres, narrowly avoiding other vehicles on more than one occasion.

[5] There were a significant number of members of the public driving on both State Highway 20 and in the Clendon Park area at the time.

1      New Zealand Police v Patel [2025] NZDC 1931.
2      New Zealand Police v Patel DC Manukau CRI-2024-092-2124, 18 July 2024.
3      Land Transport Act 1998, 35(1)(b). Maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $4,500, and the court must order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for six months or more.

Community Magistrate’s decision

[6] The Community Magistrate considered the offending to be at least moderately serious. It put others on the road at risk.4

[7] However, the Community Magistrate noted Mr Patel had passed his full licence, completed a defensive driving course and had written an apology. He had completed voluntary work and made donations to charities.5 The Community Magistrate noted a psychologist’s report recorded the anxiety…

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 Patel v Police

Details

AGLC: Patel v Police [2025] NZHC 1424
Case: [2025] NZHC 1424
Decision Date: 3 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Patel appeals against the District Court's dismissal of his appeal of a decision by the Community Magistrate, declining to grant an application for discharge without conviction under s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002. The appeal relates to a charge of dangerous driving, to which Mr Patel had pleaded guilty. Mr Patel requires leave to appeal because he filed his notice of appeal out of time and this is a second appeal.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the District Court Judge correctly assessed the seriousness of the offending and the consequences of a conviction, and whether a discharge without conviction was appropriate in the circumstances. Mr Hamlin for Mr Patel argued that the seriousness of the offending was low, and the consequences of a conviction would be disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. He also argued that the Judge erred in not considering the immediate impact of a conviction on Mr Patel's income, studies, and mental health.

The court assessed the threshold test in s 107 of the Sentencing Act, which requires that the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence. The court found that Mr Patel's dangerous driving was inherently serious due to the extremely high speeds and dangerous manoeuvres he engaged in, which posed a significant risk to public safety. While Mr Patel had taken steps to mitigate the effects of his offending, such as obtaining his full licence and completing a defensive driving course, the court found that these actions did not reduce the inherent seriousness of the offending. The court also found that the consequences of a conviction, such as the immediate loss of income and potential impact on his mental health, did not outweigh the gravity of the offence. Therefore, the court concluded that the District Court Judge was correct in declining to grant a discharge without conviction.

The court declined Mr Patel's application for leave to bring a second appeal. While Mr Patel had leave to appeal out of time due to the unavailability of counsel, the court found that there was no miscarriage of justice that would warrant a second appeal. The court found that the District Court Judge correctly assessed the seriousness of the offending and the consequences of a conviction, and that a discharge without conviction was not justified in this case.

Orders