PH v Police HC Hamilton CRI 2005-419-126

[2005] NZHC 146

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI 2005-419-126 & 7

PH

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         26 October 2005

Appearances: J PH in person (in custody)

C Shannon for respondent

Judgment:      26 October 2005

JUDGMENT OF NICHOLSON J

Appellant:

Mr J W PH, C/o The Receiving Officer, Waikeria Prison, Private Bag 2400, Te Awamutu

Solicitors:

Almao Douch, Solicitors, PO Box 19173, Hamilton (Fax: [phone])

PH V POLICE HC HAM CRI 2005-419-126 & 7  26 October 2005

[1]      Mr PH advises that his appeal is on three grounds; first, that the Court did not have jurisdiction, second, that the case against him had not been proved, and third, that the sentence was excessive.

[2]      Having heard Mr PH, as I explained to him the law has been clearly stated by the New Zealand Court of Appeal that everyone in New Zealand, be they full blooded Maori, caucasian or visitors from any country overseas, are subject to the law of New Zealand as passed by the New Zealand Parliament.

[3]      I therefore dismiss the first ground of appeal.

[4]      On the second ground of appeal, the evidence proved that Mr PH failed to supply a breath and blood specimen in circumstances where he had been driving and the Police Constable had reason to believe that he had consumed alcohol.

[5]      I therefore find there is no basis in the second ground of appeal.

[6]      The third ground of appeal, that the sentence of 12 months imprisonment on each charge was excessive, I am of the view that in light of Mr PH’s previous  convictions  for  similar  blood  alcohol  offending,  that  the  sentence  if anything was light.  However, in the circumstances I will not increase it.  I point out today, as stated by Judge Spear, that if he offends again in a similar way it is likely that he will receive a sentence of imprisonment close to the maximum of two years imprisonment.  So that is fair warning to Mr PH if he offends again.

[7]      There  is  a  special  condition  that  he  should  take  counselling  for  alcohol matters, and I strongly recommend that he does this.

[8]      The appeal is dismissed.

Nicholson J