Rewi v Police - [2016] NZHC 2928

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-404-000330/331 [2016] NZHC 2928

BETWEEN
DILLON REWI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 5 December 2016

Counsel:

N G Cooke for Appellant
H D Benson-Pope for Respondent

Judgment:

5 December 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel: N Cooke, Auckland.
Kayes Fletcher Walker, Manukau.

REWI v POLICE [2016] NZHC 2928 [5 December 2016]

[1] On 2 September 2016 Judge Bergseng sentenced the appellant to a term of 21 months’ imprisonment in relation to eight charges: two of driving while disqualified; dangerous driving; failing to stop; refusing to provide a blood sample; giving the Police false particulars; possessing methamphetamine; and finally, breaching release conditions.1 The appellant contends the sentence is manifestly excessive and ought not to have been any longer than 18 months’ imprisonment.

Background

[2] The offending comprised two incidents.

[3] On 19 April 2016, the appellant was driving in Otara. He was stopped by the Police. The appellant admitted he was a disqualified driver. He was charged with driving while disqualified, being a third or subsequent offence. The appellant was released on bail. Nothing about his driving on this occasion—but for the fact he was driving while disqualified—was remarkable.

[4] That is not true of events of 9 July 2016. The appellant was driving, again in Otara. He was stopped by the Police. The appellant gave his name as a Mr Jack Anderson. He drove away before the Police could ask for further information. They gave pursuit. The appellant failed to stop. He drove at high speeds for approximately three kilometres. He crossed the centre line on more than one occasion. He eventually stopped the car and ran away. The appellant was found in the laundry or wash-house of a nearby home. Found with him was 0.9 grams of methamphetamine. The appellant appeared to have recently consumed alcohol. He refused to carry out a breath screening test or permit a blood sample to be taken.

Sentencing below

[5] The Judge noted the pre-sentence report recommended a term of imprisonment. The Judge also noted the appellant’s responses to earlier community- based sentences had been poor. His Honour was mindful of the appellant’s 14 previous convictions for Land Transport Act offences and troubled that there was
little sign of abatement.

1 Police v Rewi [2016] NZDC 17217.

[6] The Judge adopted a starting point of 14 months’ imprisonment in relation to the charge of refusing a blood specimen. His Honour uplifted that starting point by six months for the other July offences, by four months for the April offending, and by four months for the appellant’s criminal history. The Judge afforded the appellant a 25 percent discount for his guilty pleas, resulting in a sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment.

[7] The Judge was anxious of risk:2

The sad reality for you Mr Rewi is, you are either going to kill someone, or kill yourself, and if you continue to offend in this way, the only responsible outcome, as far as 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rewi 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: [2016] NZHC 2928
Decision Date: 5 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Dillon Rewi appealed against a sentence of 21 months' imprisonment, imposed by Judge Bergseng, for eight charges including driving while disqualified, dangerous driving, and possession of methamphetamine. The court heard the appeal on 5 December 2016, with N G Cooke appearing for the appellant and H D Benson-Pope for the respondent. The court delivered an oral judgment on the same day. The central issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, with the appellant contending that it should not have exceeded 18 months' imprisonment.

The appellant's case was that the sentence was disproportionate to the offending, given the substantial increase in severity from previous sentences. The court considered several precedents, including Muhinda v Police and Paparoa v Police, which had upheld substantial terms of imprisonment for multiple Land Transport Act offences. The court found that the present sentence, while severe, was not manifestly excessive, particularly given the appellant's repeated driving while disqualified, dangerous driving, and poor compliance with previous community-based sentences. The court also noted the appellant's criminal history and the risk he posed to the public.

Downs J held that the sentence, though stern, was not manifestly excessive. The court acknowledged that the Judge at first instance had failed to explicitly consider the totality principle but found that the overall sentence was justified by the nature and seriousness of the offending. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders