Raman v Police - [2016] NZHC 1368

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2016-419-000026

[2016] NZHC 1368

BETWEEN
KAYLASH KANNAN RAMAN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 22 June 2016

Appearances:

M McLeod for the Appellant S Gilbert for the Respondent

Judgment:

22 June 2016

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

Counsel: Mrs M McLeod, Barrister, Hamilton Solicitors: Almao Douch (Crown Solicitor), Hamilton

RAMAN v POLICE [2016] NZHC 1368 [22 June 2016]

Introduction

[1]On 16 February 2016, Kaylash Kannan Raman pleaded guilty to two charges

– one of driving a motor vehicle while the proportion of alcohol in his blood exceeded 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, he having been convicted at least twice previously of a similar offence, and one of driving a motor vehicle while disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence, he having been convicted at least twice previously of a similar offence.

[2] On 28 April 2016 he was sentenced to a total of 12 months imprisonment and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for two years. He now appeals against sentence on the basis that he should have been sentenced to home detention and intensive supervision.

District Court decision

[3] At the outset of his decision, Judge RLB Spear noted that Mr Raman had been stopped by the Police while driving his sister’s car on Anglesea Street, Hamilton, at 1:51 a.m. on Sunday, 3 January 2016. He was at the time a disqualified driver. He acknowledged drinking before driving and was required to undergo breath alcohol testing. When tested, his blood alcohol level was found to be 101 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

[4] For the purpose of sentencing, the Judge put to one side Mr Raman’s first drink-driving charge in 1998, because he was under 20 years of age. The Judge then noted that this nevertheless was Mr Raman’s sixth conviction for drink-driving. He listed Mr Raman’s five previous convictions as follows:

(a)2004 – 611 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath;

(b)2006 – 566 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath;

(c)2008 – 629 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath;

(d)2009 – 526 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath; and

(e)2011 – 603 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath.

[5] In respect of the third conviction in 2008, Mr Raman was sentenced to 130 hours community work and nine months supervision. For the fourth conviction in 2009, he was sentenced to six months community detention and 18 months intensive supervision. In addition, he was given a final warning. Then when the fifth conviction was entered in 2011, Mr Raman was sentenced to 11 months imprisonment. At the same time he was sentenced to a concurrent sentence of two months imprisonment for breaching the sentence of intensive supervision imposed on his fourth conviction.

[6] The Judge noted that Mr Raman’s last conviction was in 2012, when he was indefinitely disqualified and sentenced to four months community detention for disqualified driving.

[7] The Judge then turned to 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 Raman v Police

Details

AGLC: Raman v Police [2016] NZHC 1368
Case: [2016] NZHC 1368
Decision Date: 22 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Raman v Police was heard by Woolford J. The appellant, Kaylash Kannan Raman, appealed against the sentence imposed by the District Court, arguing that he should have been sentenced to home detention and intensive supervision instead of imprisonment. Raman had pleaded guilty to driving a motor vehicle while his blood alcohol content exceeded the legal limit and while disqualified from holding a driver's licence, both of which were repeat offences. The District Court Judge sentenced Raman to 12 months imprisonment and disqualified him from holding a driver's licence for two years. The legal issues in this case were whether the District Court Judge failed to consider home detention as an alternative sentence, failed to place weight on the rehabilitative steps taken by Raman, and failed to consider his intention to attend a rehabilitation programme. The court found that the District Court Judge did not fail to consider home detention as an alternative sentence, and that the Judge's focus on individual and general deterrence was not in error. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of 12 months imprisonment and two years disqualification from holding a driver's licence was upheld.

Orders