Stevens v Police - [2025] NZHC 3016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2025-409-200

[2025] NZHC 3016

BETWEEN
ASHLEY STEPHEN STEVENS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 9 October 2025

Appearances:

K J Basire for Appellant

B W D Alexander for Respondent

Judgment:

14 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 14 October 2025 at 11 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

STEVENS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 3016 [14 October 2025]

Introduction

[1] Ashley Stevens pleaded guilty to three charges of driving while disqualified (third or subsequent),1 two charges of failing to stop for red/blue flashing lights,2 two charges of breach of release conditions,3 and one charge of dangerous driving,4 possession of methamphetamine,5 possession of utensils,6 resisting police,7 and wilful damage.8 On 8 July 2025 he was sentenced by Judge Couch to 30 months’ imprisonment.9

[2] Mr Stevens appeals this sentence on the grounds the Judge erred in adopting a starting point of three years on the driving charges, the end sentence was manifestly excessive and should have been two years or less and substituted to home detention. Mr Stevens submits the Judge erred in imposing a finite disqualification period of 30 months and submits it should have been 18 months. He also seeks an extension of time for filing the appeal as the notice of appeal was filed 10 days late.

Facts

[3] The facts of the offending were set out in the District Court and are not in dispute:

[1] …The starting point is that, in September 2020, you were made subject to an alcohol interlock order under s 65AC of the Land Transport Act 1998. You never obtained an alcohol interlock licence, so you remained disqualified indefinitely.

[2] The next relevant event is that, on 31 May 2023, you were released from prison on conditions. They included a special condition that you were not to possess or consume controlled drugs.

1      Land Transport Act 1998, s 32(1)(a) and (4); maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment and
$6000 fine.
2      Sections 52A(1)(a)(ii), (3) and (6) and 114(2); maximum penalty $10,000 fine.
3      Sentencing Act 2002, s 96(1); maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment or $2000 fine.
4      Land Transport Act, s 35(1)(b); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or $4500 fine.
5      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(a) and (2); maximum penalty six months’ imprisonment or
$1000 fine.
6      Section 13(1)(a) and (3); maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment or $500 fine.
7      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 23(a); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or $2000 fine.
8      Section 11(1)(a); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or $2000 fine.
9      Police v Stevens [2025] NZDC 16232.

[3] From the outset, you repeatedly failed to report as required by your release conditions. That has led to one charge of breach of release conditions.

[4] On the evening of 19 January 2024, you were driving a motor vehicle on a road in Rangiora. You…

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 Stevens v Police

Details

AGLC: Stevens v Police [2025] NZHC 3016
Case: [2025] NZHC 3016
Decision Date: 14 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Ashley Stevens, appeals his sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment for multiple driving offences and related charges, arguing that the District Court erred in several aspects of the sentencing process. The appellant contends that the starting point for the driving charges was too high, the total sentence was manifestly excessive, and the disqualification period for driving while disqualified should have been shorter. He also seeks an extension of time for filing the appeal.

The key legal issues before the High Court were whether the starting point for the driving charges was appropriate, if the total sentence was manifestly excessive, and whether the disqualification period was correctly imposed. The Court considered the principles of sentencing, particularly those concerning driving while disqualified and dangerous driving, and how these applied to the appellant’s history and specific circumstances.

The High Court found that the starting point of three years for the driving charges was excessive given the appellant's number of previous offences and the lack of significant aggravating features in these specific instances. The Court accepted that a starting point of two years was more appropriate. It also found the overall sentence, while severe, was not manifestly excessive when considering the totality of the offending and the need to keep the appellant off the roads. However, the Court reduced the sentence to 24 months’ imprisonment to reflect this adjustment. Regarding the disqualification period, the Court concluded that a two-and-a-half-year disqualification was disproportionate and reduced it to 18 months, ensuring a balance between punishment and the possibility of rehabilitation.

The appeal is allowed, and the sentence is reduced to 24 months’ imprisonment with adjusted disqualification periods.

Orders