Stott v Police - [2018] NZHC 1591

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2018-409-31/32 [2018] NZHC 1591

BETWEEN
HAMISH PAUL STOTT

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 22 June 2018

Appearances:

A G James for Applicant S L Dayal for Respondent

Judgment:

29 June 2018

JUDGMENT OF NICHOLAS DAVIDSON J APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE

Introduction

[1] Mr Stott pleaded guilty to one charge of driving with excess blood alcohol, third or subsequent; two charges of driving while disqualified, third or subsequent; and one charge of being found unlawfully in an enclosed yard.

[2] On 14 March 2018, the District Court Judge sentenced Mr Stott to two years and four months imprisonment. He appeals the length of sentence.

Facts

[3] On 28 June 2017, Mr Stott was disqualified from driving for one year and one day for driving contrary to the terms of a zero alcohol licence. The four charges

STOTT v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZHC 1591 [29 June 2018]

relevant to this appeal stem from two separate bouts of offending which followed that disqualification.

[4] On 25 August 2017, Mr Stott was driving his Toyota Corolla with a passenger on Southbridge Leeston Road, Leeston. He lost control, crossing the centre line, going through a fence and rolling the vehicle. The vehicle was badly damaged and Mr Stott suffered serious injuries including a Brown-Sequard spinal injury. The passenger was uninjured. A blood sample showed Mr Stott had 201 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, four times the legal limit.

[5] This incident resulted in one of the charges of driving while disqualified (third or subsequent), and the charge of driving with excess blood alcohol (third or subsequent).

[6] On 8 March 2018, at about 1.35am, Mr Stott drove to a farm property. The farm manager was alerted via text message that the fuel pump was being used, and he saw Mr Stott’s vehicle drive away at speed. The fuel pump was off the hook. The manager rang the Police who stopped Mr Stott. He was charged with driving while disqualified (third or subsequent), and being found unlawfully in an enclosed yard.

District Court

[7] Mr Stott has an extensive offence history at the age of 22. Many convictions come from the Youth Court, but he has continued to offend as an adult, including six convictions for driving while disqualified and four for drink driving.

[8] The Provision of Advice to Courts (“PAC report”) says Mr Stott is at medium risk of re-offending. He was participating in the Medium Intensity Rehabilitation Programme earlier this year but was exited because he missed several sessions, which may have been attributable to illness. The probation officer recommended another sentence of home detention, to allow Mr Stott to return to employment and undertake rehabilitation programmes. He is undergoing physiotherapy for his injuries.

[9] The Judge rejected Mr Stott’s explanations for both sets of events. He said he had arranged for someone to drive his car home from…

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 Stott v Police

Details

AGLC: Stott v Police [2018] NZHC 1591
Case: [2018] NZHC 1591
Decision Date: 29 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by Mr. Stott against his sentence was heard in the High Court of New Zealand. Mr. Stott had pleaded guilty to four charges: driving with excess blood alcohol, third or subsequent; driving while disqualified, third or subsequent; and being found unlawfully in an enclosed yard. The District Court Judge sentenced Mr. Stott to two years and four months imprisonment, which he now appealed as manifestly excessive. The central legal issues were whether the starting points for the sentences were too high, whether the totality principle had been adequately considered, and whether the court appropriately factored in Mr. Stott's youth and his recent serious injuries. The court also needed to determine if Mr. Stott's first sentence of imprisonment warranted a different outcome.

The High Court found that the District Court Judge was entitled to treat the two episodes of offending separately and impose cumulative sentences, keeping the totality principle in mind. The starting points for the sentences were within range and appropriate given the aggravating factors, such as Mr. Stott's high blood alcohol level and dangerous driving. The court acknowledged the mitigating factors, such as Mr. Stott's early guilty plea, but found that they did not outweigh the seriousness of the repeated offending. The totality principle was appropriately considered, and the sentence was not out of proportion to the gravity of the offences. The court held that the sentence imposed was well within the range for such recidivist offending and did not breach accepted sentencing principles. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders