Robarts v Police - [2014] NZHC 666

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-404-291 [2014] NZHC 666

BETWEEN
CARN ROBARTS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 31 March 2014

Appearances:

A J Maxwell-Scott for the Appellant
H Musgrave for the Respondent

Judgment:

3 April 2014

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J (Appeal against Sentence)

This judgment was delivered by me on Thursday 3 April 2014 at 4.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:………………………….

Counsel/Solicitors:
A J Maxwell-Scott, Barrister, Auckland
H Musgrave, Meredith Connell, Auckland

ROBARTS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 666 [3 April 2014]

[1] Mr Robarts appeals against the sentence imposed upon him by Judge Sinclair in the Auckland District Court for a panoply of driving related offences, to which he had pleaded guilty. The sentence was as follows:

The facts of the offending

[2] Mr Robarts’ offending occurred on two discrete occasions in 2012, three months apart. It is relevant that four years earlier, he had been forbidden from driving until he had obtained the appropriate drivers’ licence. Mr Robarts was a few months shy of his 20th birthday at the time of his offending.

First incident

[3] On 21 May 2012, Mr Robarts was driving along Routley Drive in Glen Eden. A friend was in the passenger seat.

[4] The Police activated their red and blue lights and sirens in an attempt to stop Mr Robarts. But Mr Robarts sped away, driving at approximately 80 kph in a 50 kph area. He overtook vehicles erratically on the wrong side of the road. He increased his speed to 100 kph and then crashed into a parked car, and ricocheted into another.

[5] Mr Robarts ran away and could not be found. His friend remained in the car and was spoken to by Police.

Second incident

[6] On 26 August 2012, Mr Robarts was driving on Blockhouse Bay Road, Avondale. Four friends were also in the car.

[7] A Police patrol saw the car swerve towards a parked car. They activated the red and blue lights and sirens.

[8] Mr Robarts pulled over and Police approached the car. Before a breath screening test could be carried out, he accelerated away.

[9] Police gave chase, with their red and blue lights and sirens activated. Mr

Robarts was driving at approximately 100 kph.

[10] Mr Robarts then stopped the car and deliberately reversed it into the Police car. The bumper was punctured in two places and the car was forced back violently. Mr Robarts then accelerated away and again tried to reverse his vehicle into the following Police car. The Police managed to take evasive action and avoided a collision. Mr Robarts sped off again and crashed into a car which was parked on the other side of the road. Mr Robarts got out of the car and ran into a neighbouring property.

[11] When he was found, a breath test showed that Mr Robarts’ had 390 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. This is over…

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 Robarts v Police

Details

AGLC: Robarts v Police [2014] NZHC 666
Case: [2014] NZHC 666
Decision Date: 3 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Robarts v Police, the appellant, Mr Robarts, appealed against the sentence imposed by Judge Sinclair in the Auckland District Court. The sentence was imposed following Mr Robarts' guilty pleas to a series of driving-related offences. The central issue before the court was whether the 21 months' disqualification from driving was excessive, given the totality of the sentences imposed. The appeal hinged on the argument that the judge had failed to consider the principle of totality and had improperly imposed cumulative disqualification periods.

The court considered the nature and seriousness of Mr Robarts' offending, noting that these were his first driving convictions. It was highlighted that while some period of disqualification was necessary, the total period of 21 months was excessive, especially given the other sentences imposed, including community work, intensive supervision, and reparation payments. The court emphasised that lengthy periods of disqualification can deter further offending, but also recognised that they can be daunting and potentially lead to recidivism. The court concluded that the 21-month disqualification was manifestly excessive and quashed it, substituting a more proportionate sentence of 16 months.

The reasoning of the court underscored the need for a balanced approach in sentencing, taking into account the principle of totality and the specific circumstances of the offender. The court reduced the disqualification periods to ensure they were fair and proportionate, while still addressing the seriousness of the offending and the need to protect public safety. The final orders of the court adjusted the disqualification periods to a total of 16 months, with specific periods assigned to each charge in a manner that balanced deterrence with the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders