Raumati v Police - [2021] NZHC 1641

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2021-409-000054

CRI-2021-409-000055 [2021] NZHC 1641

BETWEEN
KEREHAMA WEST RAUMATI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 29 June 2021

Appearances:

R J T George for Appellant

J E Lancaster for Respondent

Judgment:

5 July 2021

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 5 July 2021 at 11 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

Introduction

[1]Kerehama Raumati seeks leave to appeal:

(a)part of a sentence imposed on him on 26 February 2013; and

(b)a conviction for an offence which was entered on 7 June 2017.

RAUMATI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 1641 [5 July 2021]

[2] The sentence appeal relates to a sentence imposed for an offence of driving with excess blood alcohol (third or subsequent) which occurred on 3 August 2012 (the 2012 offending). As part of the sentence the District Court imposed a zero alcohol licence.1 The appellant submits the District Court had no jurisdiction to impose such a sentence.

[3] The conviction appeal is connected to the sentence appeal. On 7 June 2017 the appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of driving with excess breath alcohol (third or subsequent) and a charge of driving contrary to a zero alcohol licence granted to him. He was sentenced on 11 August 2017 to six months’ home detention, 180 hours’ community work, 18 months’ disqualification and an alcohol interlock order.

[4] Mr Raumati does not challenge the conviction for excess breath alcohol. However, he does challenge the conviction for driving in breach of the zero alcohol licence when, he submits, there was no jurisdiction to impose that form of licence on him in the first place.

Application for leave to appeal out of time

[5] The appeals are brought significantly out of time and Mr Raumati applies, pursuant to ss 231 and 248 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, for an extension of time to file his appeal against conviction and sentence. His application explains that he was never informed by his previous lawyers that the Judge had no jurisdiction to impose a zero alcohol licence in respect of the 2012 offending, and that, as a consequence, he had a ground to resist conviction on the offence of driving contrary to a zero alcohol licence.

[6] The criteria to be applied in determining applications to extend time for appealing a conviction were set out in R v Knight.2 In that case, the Court held that the “touchstone” for granting an application for an extension of time was the interests of justice in the particular case. This involved balancing the wider interests of society

1 Police v Raumati [2017] NZDC 29938.
2 R v Knight [1998] 1 NZLR 583, (1997) 15 CRNZ 332 (CA).

in the finality of decisions against the interest of the individual applicant. Relevant factors in determining such applications are:

… the strength of the proposed appeal and…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Raumati v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] NZHC 1641
Decision Date: 5 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand dealt with an appeal by Kerehama Raumati against both a sentence and a conviction imposed by the District Court. Raumati sought leave to appeal part of a sentence for driving with excess blood alcohol in 2012 and a conviction for driving with excess breath alcohol in 2017. The crux of the appeal was that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to impose a zero alcohol licence as part of the 2012 sentence, and this jurisdictional error flowed into the 2017 conviction for driving contrary to a zero alcohol licence.

The court had to determine whether the appeal was brought out of time and whether granting leave to appeal would serve the interests of justice. Raumati's delay in filing the appeal was attributed to a lack of information about the jurisdictional error from his previous lawyers. The court applied the criteria from R v Knight, balancing the interests of justice, the merits of the appeal, the reasons for the delay, and potential floodgates effects. The court found the jurisdictional error significant and the merits of the appeal strong, leading to a determination that granting leave to appeal would serve the interests of justice.

The court granted leave to appeal out of time, holding that the District Court had indeed lacked jurisdiction to impose the zero alcohol licence. This jurisdictional error invalidated the 2017 conviction for driving contrary to a zero alcohol licence. The sentence from 2013 was amended to remove the requirement for a zero alcohol licence, and the 2017 conviction was quashed. The court clarified that the original sentence remained in place but applied solely to the driving with excess breath alcohol charge.

Orders