Ryan-Morris v Police - [2024] NZHC 953

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2024-409-42

[2024] NZHC 953

BETWEEN
LIAM MICHAEL RYAN-MORRIS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 24 April 2024

Appearances:

A M S Williams for Appellant

B W D Alexander for Respondent

Judgment:

29 April 2024

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 April 2024 at 9.45 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

RYAN-MORRIS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 953 [29 April 2024]

Introduction

[1] Liam Michael Ryan-Morris pleaded guilty to two charges; one of driving with excess breath alcohol1 and one of careless driving.2

[2] He was sentenced in the District Court to a 28-day disqualification under s 65AC of the Land Transport Act 1998, which is the interlock scheme and was ordered to obtain an alcohol interlock licence. This requires him to have an alcohol interlock device fitted to the vehicle(s) he drives. After 12 months he could then apply for a zero-alcohol licence. The appellant was also ordered to pay reparations of
$10,148.74 to the owner of the vehicle he damaged.

[3] Mr Ryan-Morris appeals his conviction and sentence on the ground that the Court was unintentionally misled when incorrect information was communicated to the police prosecutor during the hearing by a representative of Mr Ryan-Morris’ employer. Had the correct information been conveyed, he argues a discharge without conviction should have been allowed.

Facts

[4] On 3 June 2023 at about 9.57 pm, Mr Ryan-Morris was driving west on Yaldhurst Road in Christchurch, in a grey Audi station wagon. Mr Ryan-Morris collided with the rear of a Toyota Hiace van.

[5] Mr Ryan-Morris stopped his vehicle and began speaking to the victim, however when Mr Ryan-Morris realised the victim was calling the police, he got back in his vehicle and left the scene.

[6] Someone else who had witnessed the accident followed Mr Ryan-Morris to his address. Mr Ryan-Morris drove up his driveway. Police conducted a door knock at the address and located the vehicle parked behind a shed on the property.

1 Land Transport Act 1998, s 56(2) — maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.
2 Section 37(1) — maximum penalty of $3000 fine.

[7] Mr Ryan-Morris spoke to police and was required to undergo breath screening procedures for alcohol. An evidential blood test returned a result of 181 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

District Court Decision

[8] Judge Gilbert acknowledged the vehicle Mr Ryan-Morris crashed into required significant costs to fix and ordered reparations of $10,148.74 to be paid at
$50 per week.3

[9] The Judge then acknowledged Mr Ryan-Morris’ application for a community-based sentence under s 94 of the Land Transport Act 1998 in lieu of disqualification on the basis that he had an exception that applied because he did not have possession of a vehicle to which an alcohol interlock device could be fitted.4

[10] Despite Mr Ryan-Morris’ submission that he…

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 Ryan-Morris v Police

Details

AGLC: Ryan-Morris v Police [2024] NZHC 953
Case: [2024] NZHC 953
Decision Date: 29 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Liam Michael Ryan-Morris, appealed his conviction and sentence for driving with excess breath alcohol and careless driving, arguing that the District Court was misled by incorrect information provided by a representative of his employer. Ryan-Morris contended that had the correct information been conveyed, a discharge without conviction should have been allowed. The key legal issue was whether the District Court's reliance on incorrect information led to a miscarriage of justice warranting an appeal against conviction and sentence.

The court assessed whether the District Court had erred by sentencing Ryan-Morris based on incorrect information about his employer's willingness to accommodate an alcohol interlock device. The court found that while there were discrepancies in the evidence, the critical fact was that Ryan-Morris' employer would not support the installation of such a device. The court concluded that this misinformation led to a significant error in the District Court's sentencing decision. The gravity of the offending was deemed moderate, considering the high blood alcohol reading, the collision, and Ryan-Morris' attempt to avoid apprehension. However, the consequences of conviction—loss of employment and limited future employment prospects—were deemed to be out of proportion to the gravity of the offence. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and Ryan-Morris was discharged without conviction, with an order to pay reparations to the victim.

The final orders were that Mr Ryan-Morris is discharged without conviction on the charges of driving with excess breath alcohol and careless driving, and is ordered to pay $10,148.74, payable at $50 per week, to the victim of his offending.

Orders