Rata v Police - [2022] NZHC 1736

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2022-488-49

[2022] NZHC 1736

BETWEEN
MANUEL PATRICK RATA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 19 July 2022

Appearances:

T Luders for Appellant

S-L Litt and E Stolwerk for Crown

Judgment:

20 July 2022

JUDGMENT OF HARVEY J

[on appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 July 2022 at 2.30 pm.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Whangarei WRMK Lawyers, Kerikeri

RATA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 1736 [20 July 2022]

Introduction

[1] Manuel Patrick Rata pleaded guilty to charges of driving with excess breath alcohol, third or subsequent,1 driving while disqualified,2 and breach of release conditions. On 25 May 2022 he was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment by Judge G L Davis in the District Court at Whangārei.3 He now appeals that decision to this Court on the basis that the learned Judge should have sentenced him to home detention.

Background

[2] On 12 March 2021, after conviction on two separate driving with excess breath alcohol charges, Mr Rata was disqualified indefinitely from driving from that date.

[3] Despite that, on 4 December 2021, Mr Rata was stopped by a police patrol car after he was observed driving along Riverside Road in Whangārei. After exhibiting signs of recent alcohol consumption, a breath test confirmed that he had a breath alcohol of 776 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. In explanation, after giving police his middle name Patrick, Mr Rata said that he had consumed Nitro energy beers and had driven from Kawakawa. He stated that he held a learner’s drivers’ licence and that he did not think that he was disqualified.

District Court decision

[4] Judge Davis began his sentencing by outlining the offending and noting that Mr Rata had been convicted of drunk driving on four other occasions — on one occasion with 1108 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. He summarised that this was, in effect, the fifth time Mr Rata has come before the Court in recent years for driving with excess alcohol.

[5] His Honour confirmed that a pre-sentence report recorded the availability of a Whangārei address for electronic sentence, which updated an earlier report that suggested imprisonment should be imposed. Judge Davis noted that Mr Rata was

1      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 56(1) and 56(4).   Maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment or a
$6,000 fine and a minimum one year of disqualification.
2      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 32(1)(a) and 32(3). Maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a $4,5000 fine and minimum six months’ disqualification.
3      Police v Rata [2022] NZDC 9646.

asking for an electronic sentence and that, while he agreed with the summary of facts, stated: “If I was impeded, I wouldn’t have driven”.4 Judge Davis pointed out that Mr Rata was indefinitely disqualified and should not have been driving at all. He drove 55 km from Kawakawa to Whangārei with a reading of 776 micrograms of alcohol…

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 Rata v Police

Details

AGLC: Rata v Police [2022] NZHC 1736
Case: [2022] NZHC 1736
Decision Date: 20 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Manuel Patrick Rata appeals against his sentence of 12 months imprisonment imposed by Judge G L Davis in the District Court. Rata pleaded guilty to driving with excess breath alcohol, driving while disqualified, and breach of release conditions. Rata argues that the District Court should have imposed a sentence of home detention instead of imprisonment. The Crown submits that the sentence was appropriate given Rata's extensive history of drink driving offences and lack of insight into his offending.

The High Court found that Judge Davis was entitled to decide that imprisonment was appropriate in the circumstances. Rata has a concerning history of drink driving offences, including five convictions in four years. Despite previous sentences of imprisonment, supervision and community work, Rata has not been deterred from re-offending. Given Rata's apparent lack of remorse and insight, the Court found that home detention would not have the required deterrent effect. While rehabilitation is an important sentencing principle, the Court held that the sentence imposed by Judge Davis can also meet the rehabilitative and reintegration aims through the release conditions.

The appeal was dismissed. The Court found that the sentence of imprisonment was not manifestly excessive and did not constitute an error warranting a different sentence. The history of re-offending and lack of insight into the offending meant that imprisonment was an appropriate outcome to address the public safety concerns.

In summary, the Court upheld the District Court's sentencing decision finding that imprisonment was a suitable outcome given Rata's history of drink driving offences while disqualified and with a proven lack of deterrence from previous non-custodial sentences. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders