R v Police HC Wellington CRI 2008-485-136

[2008] NZHC 1968

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI 2008-485-136

R

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         9 December 2008

Counsel:         K Lakshman for Appellant

K Grau for Respondent

Judgment:      9 December 2008

ORAL JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Ronald Young on 9th day of December 2008 pursuant to r540(4) of the High Court Rules 1985.

R V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC WN CRI 2008-485-136  9 December 2008

[1]      This  appeal  is  based  on  the  claim  that  a  thirteen-month  disqualification, together with a fine of $870 was manifestly excessive for driving in a dangerous manner.

[2]      The facts were relatively simple.   Another motorist observed the appellant and another vehicle racing on the Hutt/Wellington motorway.   The cars were travelling very close together.   Each was in turn trying to prevent the other from moving ahead.  The estimated speed was 150 kph.    Eventually the appellant hit a barrier and a passenger in his vehicle was injured and taken to hospital but as I take it not seriously.

[3]      He pleaded not guilty but was convicted in the District Court.

[4]      The  appellant  says  that  on  the  disqualification  period  was  manifestly excessive in that:

a)        as to the facts there was no danger to any other vehicle;

b)        secondly, beyond the driving charge there were no other charges;

c)        thirdly, the appellant had only one conviction; and

d)finally,  the  disqualification  would  fall  heavily  upon  the  appellant personally and on his family.

[5]      I  am  satisfied  the  disqualification  imposed  was  well  within  the  range available.

[6]      Firstly, there was danger to other vehicles – two vehicles racing each other is self evidently dangerous to other vehicles.   This was on the main motorway into Wellington.  One of the drivers in another vehicle who complained was obviously in the area and said afraid of what might happen.  Finally, the appellant’s driving was sufficiently bad that he collided with the centre barrier.

[7]      Secondly,   the   appellant   has   a   previous   conviction   from   events   in October 2006 relating to dangerous speed.   He was sentenced in April 2008.   He was, therefore, waiting final resolution of that case when he committed this offence. That is, by itself, an aggravating feature.   The conviction was also for dangerous driving on that occasion when he was disqualified for six-months and fined $500.

[8]      Finally,  I  accept  the  disqualification  may  fall  heavily  on  the  appellant’s family.  But of course the only person responsible for that is the appellant himself. He has now two convictions of dangerous driving, both involving serious speed within two years.  This shows an irresponsible and dangerous attitude to driving.  He is a driver who should not be allowed on the road until he matures sufficiently to understand the danger he is.

[9]      The thirteen-month disqualification was well within the range available to the

Judge.  It was not manifestly excessive.  The appeal will be dismissed.

Ronald Young J

Solicitors:

K Lakshman, Barrister, PO Box 13373, Johnsonville, Wellington

K Grau, Luke Cunningham & Clere, PO Box 10 357, Wellington, email: [email protected]