Skudder v Police - [2018] NZHC 1448

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2018-463-000035

[2018] NZHC 1448

BETWEEN
CHRISTOPHER BASIL SKUDDER

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 12 June 2018

Appearances:

S Whitehead for Appellant

E F Collis and S J P Davison for Respondent

Judgment:

15 June 2018

JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie On 15 June 2018 at 4.00pm
Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Tauranga S Whitehead, Tauranga

SKUDDER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZHC 1448 [15 June 2018]

Introduction

[1]The appellant, Christopher Skudder, pleaded guilty to the following charges:

(a)Refusing to provide a blood specimen (third or subsequent offence);1

(b)Driving while disqualified (third or subsequent offence);2 and

(c)Careless driving.3

[2] On 6 March 2018, Judge Bidois, in the District Court at Tauranga, sentenced Mr Skudder to 21 months’ imprisonment, and disqualified him from driving, pursuant to s 65(2) of the Land Transport Act 1998.4

[3] Mr Skudder appeals his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The Crown opposes the appeal.

Relevant facts

[4] On 29 March 2017, Mr Skudder was disqualified from driving for a period of one year, commencing on that day.

[5]Notwithstanding this disqualification, on Wednesday 6 December 2017 at

10.35 pm, Mr Skudder was driving a motor vehicle on Wilson Road North, Maketu. He failed to negotiate a sharp bend and crashed his vehicle. It rolled several times, landing on its roof. Mr Skudder managed to free himself, and emergency services were called. Mr Skudder was transported to Tauranga Hospital, where he was required to permit a sample of blood to be taken. He refused to do so. When he was asked for an explanation, he declined to comment.

1      Land Transport Act 1998, s 60(1)(c). As per s 60(3), the maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine not exceeding $6,000. The court must also order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for one year or more.
2      Land Transport Act, s 32(1)(a). As per s 32(4), the maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine not exceeding $6,000. The court must also order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for one year or more.
3      Land Transport Act, s 37(1). As per s 37(2), the maximum penalty is a fine not exceeding $3,000. The court may also order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for such period as the court thinks fit.
4      Police v Skudder [2018] NZDC 4360 at [10]-[12].

District Court decision

[6] After setting out the relevant facts and noting Mr Skudder’s personal circumstances, Judge Bidois observed that the sentencing principles and purposes relevant to this offending:5
[4] … include holding you accountable for your offending and promoting a sense of responsibility in you. There is a…

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 Skudder 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: [2018] NZHC 1448
Decision Date: 15 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Christopher Basil Skudder, the appellant, challenged the sentencing decision of the District Court at Tauranga, which sentenced him to 21 months' imprisonment and disqualified him from driving indefinitely. The appellant argued that his sentence was manifestly excessive. The respondent, New Zealand Police, opposed the appeal. The appellant pleaded guilty to three charges: refusing to provide a blood specimen, driving while disqualified, and careless driving. The District Court judge set a starting point of 18 months' imprisonment for the lead charge of refusing to provide a blood specimen. The judge then increased this starting point by 10 months' imprisonment for the driving while disqualified charge and reduced the sentence by seven months for mitigating factors, resulting in a final sentence of 21 months' imprisonment. The appellant argued that the increase of 10 months' imprisonment for the driving while disqualified charge was inappropriate as it amounted to double counting. The appellant also argued that the judge miscalculated the discount for mitigating factors. The High Court judge found that the 10-month uplift for the driving while disqualified charge was within the available range, and the discount for mitigating factors was correctly calculated as 25 per cent, not one-third. The appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal is dismissed, and the sentence of 21 months' imprisonment and indefinite disqualification from driving, as imposed by the District Court at Tauranga, is upheld.

Orders