Puran v Police - [2016] NZHC 1853

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-404-188 [2016] NZHC 1853

BETWEEN
RAAJIV PURAN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 9 August 2016

Appearances:

C C Watkins for the Appellant
B J Thompson for the Respondent

Judgment:

10 August 2016

JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J [APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE]

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 August 2016 at 3pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:………………………….

Solicitors/Counsel:

Meredith Connell, Auckland. C C Watkins, Auckland.

PURAN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 1853 [10 August 2016]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Raajiv Puran, was sentenced in the Auckland District Court to a total of 18 months’ imprisonment on charges of Summary Offences Act assault, four charges of driving while either disqualified or suspended (3rd or subsequent),1 failing to stop, reckless driving, possession of cannabis and breach of intensive supervision. He was also disqualified from driving for two years.

[2] Mr Puran has appealed against his sentence on the grounds it was manifestly excessive given an error in calculation, home detention was not granted, and the Judge failed to give proper weight to Mr Puran’s age or his addiction issues.

Factual background

[3] Mr Puran’s offending took place on five separate occasions. The background to the offending was that, on 26 August 2014, Mr Puran was disqualified from holding or obtaining a drivers’ licence for one year and one day on one charge of driving while disqualified, 3rd or subsequent.

[4] On 4 April 2015, Mr Puran was a passenger in a motor vehicle. When the car was stopped at a red light, Mr Puran exited the car and approached a stationary vehicle in front. He punched the driver in his forehead through a gap in the window saying, “what the fuck is wrong with you”.

[5] On 19 April 2015, Mr Puran was driving while subject to the disqualification. The Police observed him driving at speed and activated red and blue lights to stop the car. The car turned suddenly into a driveway, Mr Puran alighted and ran away before being apprehended by the Police. On arrest he was found in possession of 12 small plastic zip bags containing dried cannabis. Possession of this cannabis was in breach of the conditions of a sentence of intensive supervision Mr Puran was serving
at the time.

1 Two of the convictions appear to be in respect of driving while suspended (3rd or subsequent).
However, the facts of the offending confirm that the charges should have been laid as driving while disqualified (3rd or subsequent). The Police had filed an application to amend the charging documents. It appears this was never dealt with.

[6] On 22 July 2015, Mr Puran was driving a motor vehicle while disqualified and was stopped at a Police checkpoint.

[7] On 27 July 2015, Mr Puran was seen driving a motor vehicle while disqualified. Police stopped the vehicle and Mr Puran tried to change seats, subsequently contending he was not the driver.

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 Puran v Police

Details

AGLC: Puran v Police [2016] NZHC 1853
Case: [2016] NZHC 1853
Decision Date: 10 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Puran v Police was brought by Raajiv Puran against his sentence of 18 months' imprisonment, imposed by the Auckland District Court for various driving-related offences, assault, and drug possession. Puran argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to an error in calculation, the failure to impose home detention, and the inadequate consideration of his age and addiction issues. The legal issues centred on whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, if home detention was appropriate, and whether the sentencing judge had properly considered Puran's age and addiction issues.

The High Court found that while the sentencing process was somewhat confusing, the overall sentence of 18 months' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive. The Court assessed the lead offence of driving while disqualified, committed on 31 August 2015, as warranting a starting point of 20 months' imprisonment, increased by additional aggravating factors such as previous driving-related convictions and failure to stop for the police. The Court found that a small discount for Puran's youth could have been applied, but there was no entitlement to a discount for addiction issues or remorse. Consequently, the Court determined that a sentence of 17 months' imprisonment, inclusive of the youth discount, was appropriate.

Regarding the appropriateness of home detention, the Court found that the sentencing judge had properly exercised their discretion in declining to impose home detention. The judge's reasons, including the seriousness of the offending, Puran's lack of deterrence from previous community-based sentences, and his failure to demonstrate remorse or a commitment to change, were deemed reasonable. Furthermore, the judge correctly noted that residential rehabilitation typically required resolution of all matters, and Puran still faced outstanding charges at the time of sentencing.

Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders