Sands v Police - [2012] NZHC 3011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2012-409-000072

CRI 2012-409-000073 [2012] NZHC 3011

BETWEEN IAN CRAIG SANDS Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 8 November 2012

Counsel: R A Peters for the Appellant
D J Orchard for the Respondent

Judgment: 13 November 2012

[RESERVED] JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie
On 13 November 2012 at 4.00 pm

Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:

Distribution:
R A Peters: thomor@xtra.co.nz
D J Orchard: djo@raydon.co.nz

SANDS V POLICE HC CHCH CRI 2012-409-000072 [13 November 2012]

[1] Mr Sands appeals a sentence imposed on him by Judge DJL Saunders in the District Court at Christchurch. Mr Sands was sentenced to one year and 11 months’ imprisonment on the following charges:

(a) Driving with excess breath alcohol — third or subsequent offence on

30 September 2011;

(b) Driving with excess breath alcohol — third or subsequent offence on

29 December 2011;

(c) Driving while his license was suspended on 10 January 2012.

Mr Sands was also disqualified from driving indefinitely, with a minimum period of disqualification of 12 months. A further order was made that Mr Sands is not to acquire any interest in a motor vehicle for a period of 12 months. Reparation for the damage caused on 29 December 2011 was ordered and post-release conditions were imposed.

[2] Mr Sands asserts that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

Background

[3] On 30 September 2011, Mr Sands was driving a motor vehicle. He was stopped by the police and breath tested. The breath test returned a reading of
1064 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. When Mr Sands was spoken to by the police, he admitted to having had two beers and two or three rums. Mr Sands was released on bail, following a very early guilty plea.

[4] Some two months later, on 29 December 2011, Mr Sands was again driving. He entered the drive-through of a KFC outlet and collided with the car in front of him, causing moderate damage to its rear bumper. He was breath tested. The evidential breath test returned a reading of 1057 micrograms per litre of breath. When spoken to by the police, Mr Sands admitted that he had had six small beers, but he offered no other explanation. This offending was committed while Mr Sands

was on bail in relation to the earlier offence, and he was suspended from driving for

28 days.

[5] On 19 January 2012, within the 28-day disqualification period, Mr Sands was apprehended while he was driving a motor vehicle. He admitted that he was a suspended driver and stated that he was driving to a work mate’s place.

[6] Mr Sands has an appalling drink-driving record. He has eight previous convictions for drink-driving, two convictions for driving in a careless manner, one conviction for driving in a dangerous manner, five convictions for driving whilst disqualified and two convictions for refusing to provide a blood specimen.

Judge Saunders’…

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 Sands v Police

Details

AGLC: Sands v Police [2012] NZHC 3011
Case: [2012] NZHC 3011
Decision Date: 13 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ian Craig Sands appeals the sentence imposed on him by Judge DJL Saunders in the District Court at Christchurch. Sands was sentenced to one year and 11 months’ imprisonment for multiple driving offences, including driving with excess breath alcohol and driving while his license was suspended. Sands argues that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court considered whether the sentence was within the range that could be justified by accepted sentencing principles. Judge Saunders noted Sands' extensive history of drink-driving and other related convictions, and considered him a major risk to road users. The court found that the starting point for the sentence, while stern, was not inappropriate and the sentence did not violate the totality principle. The court did not consider it necessary to make allowances for remorse or the assertion that Sands is prepared to confront his underlying drinking problems, as there was no evidence of genuine remorse and Sands had failed to address his drinking issues in the past. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence upheld.

In summary, the court found that the sentence imposed on Sands was not manifestly excessive and was justified by the severity of his repeated drink-driving offences and lack of genuine remorse. The appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence upheld.

Orders