Legal Research
Cases
Stacey v Police

Stacey v Police

Case [2018] NZHC 3280 12 December 2018

Sentencing

Recidivism

Imprisonment

Community-based Sentences

Statutory Interpretation

Limitation Periods

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2018-463-95

[2018] NZHC 3280

BETWEEN
JARRED JOHN STACEY

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 29 November 2018

Appearances:

M J Toner for Appellant E F Collis for Respondent

Judgment:

12 December 2018

JUDGMENT OF PAUL DAVISON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 12 December 2018 at 4:30 pm Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Tauranga

STACEY v POLICE [2018] NZHC 3280 [12 December 2018]

Introduction

[1] Jarred Stacey pleaded guilty to one charge of driving while disqualified (third or subsequent),1 his 21st conviction for that offence. He was apprehended driving while disqualified in Tauranga on the evening of 10 March 2018, and said that he had driven because his passenger, who is the car’s registered owner, had been drinking.

[2] Judge Cook imposed a sentence of 13 months’ imprisonment, as well as disqualification from driving for 12 months and one day.2 In doing so, her Honour declined Mr Stacey’s application under s 94 of the Land Transport Act 1998. Section 94 gives the Court a discretion to substitute a mandatory disqualification period for a community-based sentence.

[3] Mr Stacey now appeals against his sentence on the grounds that the Judge did not take into account the mandatory considerations in s 94 of the Land Transport Act and that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

Mr Stacey’s personal circumstances

[4] Mr Stacey is 37 years old. He has three children, and has varying levels of contact with the two eldest. His partner says in a letter to the Court that Mr Stacey’s eldest daughter had just moved back into his full-time care weeks prior to his sentencing in the District Court.

[5] Following his release from prison in 2017, Mr Stacey obtained full-time employment as a machinery operator at an earthmoving business. His employer, who has also been a friend of Mr Stacey for 10 years, has written a letter of support to the Court. He says that Mr Stacey has a positive attitude towards his job and has worked very hard to secure a full-time position.

[6] Mr Stacey has a lengthy criminal history which includes convictions for breaching court-imposed conditions, assault (in a family violence context), shoplifting

1 Land Transport Act 1998, s 32(4); maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $6,000, and the Court must order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for one year or more.
2 Police v Stacey [2018] NZDC 20412.

and receiving stolen property, among other things. Relevantly for present purposes, he has an extensive record of driving-related offences. He has 20 prior convictions for driving while disqualified or unlicensed, dating back to 1998. He has previously received community-based sentences, home detention and more recently imprisonment on those charges. In November 2016, he was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment for his 20th conviction for driving while…

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 Stacey v Police

Details

AGLC: Stacey v Police [2018] NZHC 3280
Case: [2018] NZHC 3280
Decision Date: 12 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the appellant, Jarred Stacey, appealed against his sentence for driving while disqualified, his 21st conviction for that offence. The District Court Judge imposed a sentence of 13 months' imprisonment, as well as disqualification from driving for 12 months and one day, and declined Mr Stacey's application under s 94 of the Land Transport Act 1998. Mr Stacey argued that the Judge failed to take into account the mandatory considerations in s 94 of the Land Transport Act and that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court considered the appellant's arguments and found that the District Court Judge did not err in principle in exercising her discretion or fail to take into account a material consideration. The court also considered that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that a sentence of imprisonment was warranted to achieve consistency with other sentencing decisions and to meet the purposes of sentencing. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal.

Orders