Rissetto v Police - [2013] NZHC 1633

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2013-404-133 [2013] NZHC 1633

BETWEEN QUINTEN RISSETTO Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 1 July 2013

Counsel: A Comeskey for Appellant
R Thomson for Respondent

Judgment: 1 July 2013

ORALJUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J (Appeal against sentence)

Introduction

[1] Mr Rissetto has been convicted 26 times of driving while disqualified since

1999, now 14 years ago. In this appeal against sentence, he says the 18 month imprisonment sentence was manifestly excessive. In particular, he says, the Judge placed too much emphasis on deterrence; he took into account an irrelevant consideration, namely the fact that the appellant did not have insurance; he gave insufficient weight to rehabilitation efforts and a sentence of home detention was the least restrictive sentence.

[2] The facts are straight forward. On 4 August 2012, the appellant was stopped by a Police officer and admitted driving while disqualified. Curiously he did not plead guilty immediately. He pleaded not guilty. His plea was only finally changed on 11 March 2013, some seven and a half months after his apprehension and
sometime after the defended fixture for his case was due to be heard.

RISSETTO v POLICE [2013] NZHC 1633 [1 July 2013]

[3] I note that the appellant can only have been very recently released from prison when apprehended given he had been sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment in May 2012.

District Court sentencing

[4] The Judge at sentencing considered the appropriate starting sentence was two years’ imprisonment given the appellant’s past record. The Judge noted that over the previous three months Mr Rissetto had taken positive rehabilitative steps. The Judge considered only a very modest reduction for the appellant’s guilty plea could be justified but said he would give a relatively generous deduction for rehabilitation. His six month reduction was a total of 25 per cent leaving the final sentence of
18 months’ imprisonment.

Discussion

[5] There can be no complaint about the starting sentence of two years’ imprisonment. Mr Rissetto has constantly offended since 1999. He averages almost two driving while disqualified offences each year. It is clear he takes not the slightest notice of court orders. As well his convictions reveal an irresponsible attitude to driving. He has eight convictions for driving offences such as careless driving and dangerous driving. There are, therefore, good reasons not to have Mr Rissetto on the road consistent with road safety.

[6] Further, the courts must also ensure that their orders are obeyed. Finally, in addition to the 26 convictions, Mr Rissetto committed this offence while still subject to his May 2012 sentence.

[7] I accept the appellant’s point that the fact the appellant had no vehicle insurance is not a matter that was relevant to sentencing. However, as the Judge made it clear this was not a major reason for his start sentence or any reason at all for refusing home detention. For the reasons given, therefore, I consider that there were ample grounds for a start sentence…

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 Rissetto 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: [2013] NZHC 1633
Decision Date: 1 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr. Rissetto, challenged the 18-month imprisonment sentence imposed by the District Court, arguing it was manifestly excessive. He claimed that the sentencing judge placed undue emphasis on deterrence and took into account an irrelevant factor – his lack of insurance. Additionally, he asserted that the judge failed to adequately consider his rehabilitation efforts, suggesting that a sentence of home detention would have been more appropriate. The High Court was required to determine whether the District Court's sentence was correct and whether any errors in the sentencing process warranted an appeal.

The Court found that the starting sentence of two years' imprisonment was appropriate, given Mr. Rissetto's extensive history of driving while disqualified and other driving offenses. The judge considered Mr. Rissetto's recent rehabilitative efforts, but the Court determined that a late guilty plea and the rehabilitative efforts warranted only a modest reduction. The Court noted that it was difficult to gauge the effectiveness of the rehabilitative programs and that Mr. Rissetto's long history of non-compliance with court orders made it hard to believe that a few months of rehabilitation courses would change his attitude. The Court also concluded that the lack of vehicle insurance was not a relevant consideration for sentencing and did not influence the judge's decision to deny home detention. The Court found that the judge did not make any substantial errors in concluding that the circumstances did not warrant a home detention sentence.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the District Court's sentencing decision was sound and that there were no grounds for an appeal. The Court upheld the 18-month imprisonment sentence imposed on Mr. Rissetto, emphasizing the need for deterrence and a strong message against his continued offending behavior.

Orders