Ranford v Police - [2021] NZHC 132

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2020-443-32

[2021] NZHC 132

BETWEEN
PHILLIP GRAHAM RANFORD

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 10 February 2021

Appearances:

NP Bourke for Appellant JE Bourke for Respondent

Judgment:

10 February 2021

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF FITZGERALD J

Solicitors: C & M Legal, New Plymouth Counsel: N Bourke, New Plymouth

RANFORD v POLICE [2021] NZHC 132 [10 February 2021]

Introduction

[1] Philip Ranford has been convicted on one charge of driving with excess breath alcohol (third or subsequent),1 one charge of failing to stop to ascertain injury2 and one charge of driving contrary to the requirements of a zero-alcohol licence.3 This is Mr Ranford’s seventh drink driving conviction since 1993.

[2] On 16 December 2020 in the District Court at New Plymouth, Mr Ranford was sentenced by Judge C D Sygrove on the lead charge of driving with excess breath alcohol (third or subsequent) to 13 months and two weeks’ imprisonment, with leave to apply for home detention.4 Mr Ranford was also disqualified from driving for six months and ordered to apply for an alcohol interlock licence. Leave to apply for home detention was reserved because while Mr Ranford had identified a suitable address for a sentence of home detention (namely his mother’s house), the property did not have adequate cellular coverage for electronic monitoring.

[3] Mr Ranford appeals his sentence on the basis that the Judge failed to impose the least restrictive outcome that was appropriate in the circumstances. Counsel for Mr Ranford, Mr Bourke, submits that the least restrictive appropriate outcome was either a sentence of intensive supervision coupled with significant community work, or a non-electronically monitored sentence of home detention.

[4] A preliminary point arises. Mr Ranford seeks leave to file a memorandum containing a recent article from the New Zealand Law Society email bulletin “Lawpoints” published on 4 February 2021. The article notes that the Department of Corrections has trialled random alcohol and drug testing in the Northern region (that is, from the Bombay hills north), and is now expanding that programme to the other regions around the country. This suggests there will be increased testing if the Court re-sentences Mr Ranford to home detention or intensive supervision with a condition

1      Land Transport Act 1998, s 56. Maximum penalty 2 years’ imprisonment or a $6,000 fine, and a mandatory disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver’s license for more than 1 year.
2      Land Transport Act 1998, s 35. Maximum penalty 3 months’ imprisonment or a $4,500 fine, and a mandatory disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver’s license for 6 months or more.
3      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 57AA(4) and 57AA(6). Maximum penalty 2 years’ imprisonment or a $6,000 fine, and a mandatory disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver’s license for 1 year or more.
4      Police v Ranford [2020] NZDC 26283.

requiring him to refrain from consuming alcohol. This, Mr Bourke suggests, increases the chances…

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 Ranford v Police

Details

AGLC: Ranford v Police [2021] NZHC 132
Case: [2021] NZHC 132
Decision Date: 10 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Phillip Graham Ranford appeals his sentence for driving with excess breath alcohol (third or subsequent), failing to stop to ascertain injury and driving contrary to the requirements of a zero-alcohol licence. The District Court Judge sentenced Ranford to 13 months and two weeks’ imprisonment, with leave to apply for home detention. Ranford’s counsel argues that the Judge erred in not imposing the least restrictive outcome appropriate in the circumstances, which they submit should have been either a sentence of intensive supervision coupled with significant community work, or a non-electronically monitored sentence of home detention. The court found that the District Court Judge had not considered the possibility of home detention with manual monitoring, or explained why it would not be appropriate. The court also found that electronic monitoring would not have been crucial in this case given the nature of Ranford’s offending and his previous compliance with his sentences and bail conditions. The primary focus of sentencing in this case must be Ranford’s long-term rehabilitation, which will provide the best protection to the public going forward. A period of intensive supervision, coupled with community work (to serve as a deterrent and to denounce Ranford’s offending) is the most appropriate and least restrictive sentencing option available. Such a sentence allows for intensive supervision of Ranford over a reasonably lengthy period of time, so the relevant authorities can assist him come to grips with the underlying and long-term issues which are causing his offending. And special conditions which can be imposed on the sentence provide suitable oversight and control of him. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The sentences of imprisonment on all three charges are quashed. A sentence on the charge of driving with excess breath alcohol (third or subsequent) is imposed of 18 months’ intensive supervision, on the standard and special conditions referred to above; and 100 hours of community work. The District Court orders of disqualification for six months and the requirement for an alcohol interlock device being fitted are not challenged on appeal, and those aspects of the District Court’s sentence are therefore unaffected. No further sentence or orders are made on the charges of failing to stop to ascertain injury and driving contrary to the requirements of a zero-alcohol licence.

Orders