Legal Research
Cases
Police v Body

Police v Body

Case [2013] NZHC 1586 27 June 2013

Sentencing

Discretion in Sentencing

Community-based Sentences

Substitution of Community-based Sentences

Imprisonment

Compensatory Damages

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI 2013-443-007
CRI 2013-443-005
CRI 2013-443-008
CRI 2013-443-006

CRI 2013-443-004 [2013] NZHC 1586

BETWEEN NEW ZEALAND POLICE Appellant

ANDTERRANCE WILLIAM JAMES BODY PETER ANDREW CHRISTENSEN ROBYN MARTIN
NIKKI ANN HENERIATA KOMENE DOUGLAS JOHN CAPSTICK Respondents

Hearing: 10 April 2013

Appearances: S Law for the Appellant
A Dallison for Body and Christensen
J Hannam for Martin and Komene
No appearance for Capstick

Judgment: 27 June 2013

JUDGMENT OF MALLON J

NEW ZEALAND POLICE v BODY, CHRISTENSEN, MARTIN, KOMENE, CAPSTICK [2013] NZHC 1586 [27 June 2013]

Contents

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... [1] The statutory discretion .................................................................................................................... [2] The particular cases ........................................................................................................................ [13]
Body.............................................................................................................................................. [13] Facts......................................................................................................................................... [13] Personal circumstances ............................................................................................................ [14] District Court sentence ............................................................................................................ [15] Submissions ............................................................................................................................. [17] My assessment ......................................................................................................................... [19]

Komene ......................................................................................................................................... [20] Facts......................................................................................................................................... [20] Personal circumstances ............................................................................................................ [21] District Court sentence ............................................................................................................ [22] Submissions ............................................................................................................................. [24] My assessment ......................................................................................................................... [26]

Christensen ................................................................................................................................... [30] Facts......................................................................................................................................... [30] District Court sentence ............................................................................................................ [32] Submissions ............................................................................................................................. [34] My assessment ......................................................................................................................... [36]

Martin ........................................................................................................................................... [44] Facts......................................................................................................................................... [44] Personal circumstances ............................................................................................................ [45] District Court sentence ............................................................................................................ [46] Submissions ............................................................................................................................. [48] My assessment ......................................................................................................................... [50]

Capstick ........................................................................................................................................ [51] Facts......................................................................................................................................... [51] Personal circumstances ............................................................................................................ [52] District Court sentence ............................................................................................................ [55] Submissions ............................................................................................................................. [56] My assessment ......................................................................................................................... [58]

Result ................................................................................................................................................ [61]

Introduction

[1] These five appeals were heard together. They concern the Court’s discretion to substitute an order for disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence with a community-based sentence.1 The appeals have been brought by the informant2 because the District Court Judge (Judge Adeane) who was hearing these matters in New Plymouth on a particular day (20 December 2012) approached his
discretion by substituting the disqualification order with community work on all the matters before him where there was no offence committed other than driving while disqualified.3 The informant considers that the approach taken by this Judge on this day was not a proper approach to the discretion. The informant says that the proper exercise of the discretion is dependent on the relevant factors that are set out in the statutory provision under which the discretion is exercised as they apply to the
particular facts. In respect of two of the appeals the informant also says that the sentence was manifestly inadequate.

The statutory discretion

[2] A person commits an offence if the person drives a motor vehicle on a road while disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence.4 If this is a first or second offence of driving while disqualified the court “must” order that the person be disqualified for six months or more.5 If this is a third or subsequent offence the court “must” order that the person be disqualified for one year or more.6 In each
case this is in addition to any other penalty that may be imposed.7

1 As these appeals are against the exercise of a discretion, there must be an error of principle, a failure to take into account relevant considerations, the taking into account of irrelevant considerations or the…

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 Police v Body

Details

AGLC: Police v Body [2013] NZHC 1586
Case: [2013] NZHC 1586
Decision Date: 27 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court heard appeals by the New Zealand Police against sentences imposed by the District Court in New Plymouth. The appellant was dissatisfied with the sentences imposed on five respondents for driving while disqualified. The court was required to determine whether the District Court had erred in substituting community-based sentences for orders of disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver's licence. The court considered whether the District Court had properly exercised its discretion under section 94 of the Land Transport Act 1998.

The court found that the District Court had not erred in exercising its discretion. The court considered that the sentences imposed were appropriate given the circumstances of each case, and that the District Court had taken into account the relevant factors set out in section 94 of the Act. The court found that the sentences imposed were not manifestly inadequate and did not amount to an error of principle or a failure to take into account relevant considerations.

The appeals were dismissed, and the sentences imposed by the District Court were upheld.

Orders