Rahman v Police - [2024] NZHC 205

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-404-632

[2024] NZHC 205

BETWEEN
YOUSRA (SARA) RAHMAN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 13 February 2024

Appearances:

A Hart for Appellant

M Nash for Respondent

Judgment:

19 February 2024

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang On 19 February 2024 at 2.30 pm
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
Hart & Associates, Auckland
Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland

RAHMAN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 205 [19 February 2024]

[1] Ms Rahman pleaded guilty in the District Court to three charges of driving whilst disqualified, two charges of driving contrary to the terms of an alcohol interlock licence and one charge of driving when her blood contained alcohol whilst she held an alcohol interlock licence.

[2] On 14 November 2023, Judge J D Large sentenced Ms Rahman to concurrent sentences of home detention on all charges, the net effect of which was to require Ms Rahman to serve a sentence of three months home detention.1 He also disqualified her from driving for the mandatory periods prescribed by the Land Transport Act 1998 (the Act). He calculated these as being 12 months and one day on the charges of driving whilst disqualified followed by three consecutive periods of 28 days each on the three remaining charges. The Judge calculated that these resulted in Ms Rahman being disqualified from driving until February 2025.

[3] Ms Rahman appeals against the periods of disqualification the Judge imposed. She contends he ought to have exercised his powers under s 94 of the Act to impose a community-based sentence rather than further periods of disqualification. She therefore contends the Judge erred in principle in imposing the orders for disqualification.

Background

[4] Ms Rahman has a lengthy history of driving whilst disqualified and driving with excess breath and blood alcohol. She also has convictions for dangerous driving and operating a motor vehicle recklessly.

[5] Prior to the present offending, Ms Rahman’s most recent appearance before the court was on 21 January 2021. On that occasion, she was sentenced on charges of driving whilst her licence was suspended or revoked, driving with alcohol in her blood whilst subject to a zero alcohol licence, operating a motor vehicle recklessly and failing to stop for red and blue flashing lights. On that occasion, she was sentenced to intensive supervision for 18 months as well as community detention for six months. In addition, she was disqualified from driving for a period of six months.

1 Police v Rahman [2023] NZDC 25571.

[6] On 23 May 2021, a vehicle was observed driving in an erratic manner in a westerly direction on State Highway 16. The police stopped the vehicle and found Ms Rahman to be the driver. Enquiries revealed that she was driving whilst disqualified.

[7] On 13 January 2022, the police stopped Ms Rahman whilst she was driving in an east bound…

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 Rahman v Police

Details

AGLC: Rahman v Police [2024] NZHC 205
Case: [2024] NZHC 205
Decision Date: 19 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Yousra (Sara) Rahman appeals against her sentence in the District Court, which included concurrent periods of home detention and disqualification from driving. Rahman argues that the Judge erred in imposing further periods of disqualification instead of a community-based sentence under s 94 of the Land Transport Act 1998. The appeal raises the issue of whether the Judge appropriately considered the application of s 94 and whether a community-based sentence was appropriate in the circumstances.

The court considered the policy considerations underlying s 94, which was enacted to address the cycle of disqualification that many offenders fall into. The court noted that s 94 is an enabling provision, and the court is not required to impose a community-based sentence but must be satisfied that a further period of disqualification is inappropriate. The court found that the Judge had appropriately considered the s 94 issue and concluded that it was not in the public interest to not disqualify Rahman, given her history of offending. However, the court found that it was in Rahman's and the public's interests for the Judge to exercise his powers under s 94 to provide her with an opportunity to break her cycle of offending.

The appeal is allowed in part. The orders for disqualification on the charges of driving whilst disqualified and driving in vehicles that were not fitted with an alcohol interlock device are set aside. Rahman is ordered to perform 50 hours of community work on each charge, to be served concurrently. The appeal against sentence is dismissed on the charge of driving with alcohol in her blood whilst Rahman was subject to an alcohol interlock licence. However, the court confirms that the period of 28 days disqualification imposed on that charge commenced on 15 November 2023.

Orders