Sandle v Police - [2014] NZHC 2720

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2014-404-000069 [2014] NZHC 2720

BETWEEN
SIDNEY SANDLE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 21 October 2014

Appearances:

P Winkler and M J Mellin for Appellant
J V Barry for Respondent

Judgment:

3 November 2014

JUDGMENT OF GILBERT J

This judgment is delivered by me on 3 November 2014 at 2pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

..................................................... Registrar / Deputy Registrar

SANDLE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 2720 [3 November 2014]

Introduction

[1] The question raised on this appeal is whether a person whose licence has been suspended under s 90 of the Land Transport Act 1998 following the accumulation of 100 or more demerit points within a two year period, and who is subsequently convicted of driving contrary to the terms of a limited licence, is eligible to apply under s 94 of the Act for a community-based sentence in lieu of disqualification.

Background

[2] On 24 July 2011, Mr Sandle’s licence was automatically suspended for three months under s 90 of the Act because he had accumulated 100 or more demerit points. Mr Sandle was granted a limited licence in the Manukau District Court on
1 August 2011. Two months later, Mr Sandle drove in breach of the terms of his limited licence. On 14 March 2013, he pleaded guilty to this offence, which carries a mandatory minimum term of six months’ disqualification.1 Because Mr Sandle is not eligible to apply for a further limited licence,2 he applied under s 94 of the Act for a community-based sentence in lieu of disqualification.

[3] Section 94(1)(a) of the Act provides:

94 Substitution of community-based sentences

(1) This section applies if –

(a) the offender has previously been ordered on conviction for
an offence to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence;

[4] Judge D G Mather declined Mr Sandle’s application in a judgment given in the Waitakere District Court on 23 May 2013.3 The Judge found that s 94 did not apply in the circumstances of Mr Sandle’s case because he had not “previously been
ordered on conviction for an offence to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a

1      Land Transport Act 1998, s 32(3).
2      Section 103(2)(c).
3      Police v Sandle DC Waitakere CRI-2011-070-6638, 23 May 2013.

driver licence”. Rather, Mr Sandle’s licence had been suspended by operation of law

as a result of the accumulation of demerit points.

[5] The sole question on this appeal is whether the Judge was correct in finding that Mr Sandle does not meet the criteria in s 94(1)(a).

Appellant’s submissions

[6] Mr Mellin contends that s 94(1)(a) applies in this case because Mr Sandle was convicted of a number of offences which resulted in his licence being suspended by order due to the accumulation of demerit points. Mr Mellin submits that licence suspension is the same as being disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for the purposes of s 94.

[7]…

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 Sandle v Police

Details

AGLC: Sandle v Police [2014] NZHC 2720
Case: [2014] NZHC 2720
Decision Date: 3 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sandle v Police, heard in the High Court of New Zealand, concerns the eligibility of Sidney Sandle, whose driver's license had been suspended due to the accumulation of 100 or more demerit points, to apply for a community-based sentence in lieu of disqualification under section 94 of the Land Transport Act 1998. Sandle had been granted a limited licence following the suspension but subsequently drove in breach of its terms, leading to his application for a community-based sentence. The legal issue at hand was whether Sandle's prior licence suspension qualified him to apply for such a sentence under section 94(1)(a) of the Act.

The court examined the statutory language of section 94(1)(a) and historical interpretations of similar provisions, particularly focusing on the distinction between disqualification by court order and suspension by operation of law. It noted that previous judgments had interpreted similar sections of the Act to differentiate between these two processes, with suspension by demerit points not being considered equivalent to disqualification by court order. The court held that the plain meaning of the statutory language did not include suspension within the scope of disqualification and that Sandle's licence suspension did not meet the criteria for applying under section 94. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision that Sandle was not eligible to apply for a community-based sentence under section 94.

Orders