R v Thacker

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2021-070-4221 [2024] NZHC 3395

THE KING

v

JIM DAVID THACKER

Hearing: 14 November 2024

Appearances:

C A Bourke for the Crown

W T Nabney and S Mills for Mr Thacker

Judgment:

14 November 2024

SENTENCING REMARKS OF HARLAND J

[1] Mr Thacker, I presided over a jury trial in respect of which you pleaded guilty to two charges of driving while disqualified.1 Those charges, charges 106 (that was offending on 24 May 2020 at Mt Maunganui) and 110 (which was offending on 12 June 2020 at Te Puke) in the Crown Charge List presented at the outset of the trial, and you ought to have had convictions entered in respect of them as, in both cases, you had pleaded guilty to them on 17 August 2022 during the arraignment process at the beginning of the trial. Unfortunately, convictions were not entered and latterly, when I sentenced you on other charges, these charges were overlooked. I apologise for that. That is the situation that clearly needs to be rectified today.

1 Land Transport Act 1998, ss 32(1)(a) and 32(3).

R v THACKER [2024] NZHC 3395 [14 November 2024]

[2] On 18 August 2023, I sentenced you to 22 years and four months' imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years on 53 charges, largely comprising class A and B drug offending, money laundering and Arms Act offending.2 Both counsel agree that, given the sentence you are subject to, an appropriate outcome would be to convict and discharge you in respect of both disqualified driving charges, with the disqualification to be imposed unless the Court considers, as they submitted in their submissions, that, in the circumstances, that was not required.

[3] I agree that the appropriate outcome is to convict and discharge you on each charge, and I do so. Even though there appears little point in imposing disqualification, s 32(3) of the Land Transport Act 1998 requires me to do so. On both charges, I disqualify you from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for six months from today. The disqualification is to be concurrent, not cumulative, which means that there is only one period of six months' disqualification imposed.

[4] Thank you very much and, again, apologies that it has taken so long to resolve this minor matter.

Harland J

Solicitors:
Pollett Legal Ltd, Tauranga
W T Nabney, Barrister, Tauranga.

2 R v Thacker [2023] NZHC 3104.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Tauranga Registry, Mr. Jim David Thacker was convicted and sentenced for multiple charges, including two counts of driving while disqualified. The court proceedings, presided over by Harland J, included a hearing on 14 November 2024, with the Crown represented by C A Bourke and Mr. Thacker by W T Nabney and S Mills. The court issued sentencing remarks on the same day, acknowledging an oversight in not recording convictions on the disqualified driving charges during the previous sentencing.

The legal issues before the court involved the appropriate sentencing for two charges of driving while disqualified, where the defendant had previously pleaded guilty. Both counsel agreed that, given the extensive sentence already imposed on Mr. Thacker for other serious offences, the appropriate resolution would be to convict and discharge him on these charges. The court had to determine whether to impose a disqualification period on Mr. Thacker's driver's license, as required by the Land Transport Act 1998.

Harland J concluded that convicting and discharging Mr. Thacker on each disqualified driving charge was the appropriate outcome. Although the disqualification seemed redundant given the extensive sentence already imposed, the court was obligated by statute to impose a six-month disqualification period. The disqualification was ordered to be concurrent, not cumulative, resulting in a single six-month period. The judge also apologised for the delay in addressing this matter.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established