Steel v Police - [2020] NZHC 3028

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CIV-2020-412-000032

[2020] NZHC 3028

BETWEEN
RICHARD JOHN STEEL

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 16 November 2020

Appearances:

A C M Bligh for Appellant

C J Bernhardt for Respondent

Judgment:

17 November 2020

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 17 November 2020 at 11:30 a.m. pursuant to Rule
11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

STEEL v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 3028 [17 November 2020]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Mr Steel, pleaded guilty to a charge of dangerous driving causing injury. He was sentenced on 14 July 2020 by Judge Crosbie in the District Court to 16 months’ imprisonment with six months’ special post release conditions. He was disqualified from driving for two years.1 Mr Steel appeals his sentence but only on the grounds the length of the driving disqualification was manifestly excessive.

Facts

[2] On 13 August 2019 at around 7.20am Mr Steel began driving dangerously in Dunedin. He crossed the centre line on Victoria Road and drove on the incorrect side of the road. Mr Steel approached and entered a roundabout in the oncoming lane and went around it anticlockwise. He turned right on to Prince Albert Road and continued on the wrong side of the road. Mr Steel overtook and cut in front of another vehicle at speed, returned to the correct side of the road and stopped at a red light.

[3] Mr Steel then entered the intersection while the traffic signal was red, turned on to the wrong side of the road and entered another intersection against the red traffic signal. He crashed into the victim who was travelling north on a green traffic signal. The victim suffered whiplash, bruising to her elbow, pain in her neck, and a pneumomediastinum.2 Mr Steel told police he was not sure what colour the traffic signals were when he entered the intersection, that he had come from the beach, and had not slept the night before.

District Court decision

[4] Judge Crosbie provided a sentence indication for Mr Steel which was accepted. In his final sentencing, Judge Crosbie noted the inference was that this highly unusual and dangerous driving was influenced at the time by possible mental

1 R v Steel [2020] NZDC 13671.
2 An abnormal presence of air in the centre of the chest due to trauma.

health challenges.3 Counsel agreed the starting point adopted of just over two years’ imprisonment was appropriate.

[5] The Judge considered the sentence was one enabling home detention to be properly considered but on this he felt he must have regard to the various additional reports before him. He found this sentencing exercise difficult. The probation report noted there had been some previous compliance with sentencing but there had also been late reporting, moving without consent, refusal to allow probation to complete home visits, and what was said to be the appearance of paranoia…

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 Steel 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: [2020] NZHC 3028
Decision Date: 17 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Steel v Police [2020] NZHC 3028, the appellant, Mr. Richard John Steel, appealed the sentence imposed by the District Court for dangerous driving causing injury. The District Court sentenced Mr. Steel to 16 months' imprisonment, six months' special post-release conditions, a $7,500 reparation order, and a two-year disqualification from driving. Mr. Steel only appealed the driving disqualification period, arguing it was manifestly excessive.

The legal issue before the court was whether the District Court erred in imposing a two-year driving disqualification period when Mr. Steel had already been disqualified from driving for nine-and-a-half months while on bail. Mr. Steel argued this period should have been taken into account when determining the disqualification period.

The court considered that while it was appropriate to give credit for the time spent on bail, Mr. Steel's history of driving convictions and lack of insight into his dangerous driving warranted a longer disqualification period. The court found that a modest discount of five months was appropriate to recognise the time Mr. Steel had spent on bail with a condition not to drive. The appeal was allowed, and the driving disqualification period was reduced from two years to one year and seven months.

Orders