Sutherland v Police

Case [2022] NZHC 2399


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2022-425-10

[2022] NZHC 2399

BETWEEN

JAMIE MATHEW SUTHERLAND

Appellant

AND

NZ POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 19 September 2022

Appearances:

J A T Ross for Appellant

M B Brownlie for Respondent

Judgment:

19 September 2022


ORAL JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J


This judgment was delivered by me on 20 September 2022 at 9.30 am

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

SUTHERLAND v NZ POLICE [2022] NZHC 2399 [19 September 2022]

The sentence under appeal

[1]                 On 17 January 2022, Jamie Sutherland pleaded guilty to and was convicted of one charge of driving a motor vehicle in a manner which was dangerous to the public,1 one charge of refusing to accompany without delay an enforcement officer to a place when required to do so,2 and one charge of failing to remain stopped when stopped by an enforcement officer.3 On 28 March 2022, Judge Walker sentenced Mr Sutherland to pay $2,500 in fines. He ordered him to pay $390 in court costs and Mr Sutherland was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 18 months.4

[2]                 He appeals against the period of disqualification. Mr Ross, for Mr Sutherland, submits the appropriate period was 12 months.

The facts of the offending

[3]                 Mr Sutherland was driving in Queenstown. He failed to give way to a Police vehicle as he turned left onto a different road. He was followed by Police flashing their red and blue lights and stopped. Mr Sutherland was required to undergo a breath screening test which provided a positive result of alcohol over 250 micrograms.

[4]                 Mr Sutherland was then required to accompany Police to the station for the purpose of an evidential breath test. He refused to do so and said he would follow Police in his own vehicle. Police warned him that refusing to accompany them would result in his being arrested. He persisted in his refusal to accompany them to the station.


1      Land Transport Act 1998, s 35(1)(b): maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a fine of

$4,500, and a mandatory disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver licence for six months or more.

2      Section 59(1)(b): maximum penalty a fine of $4,500 and a disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver licence for such a period as the court thinks fit.

3      Sections 52A(1)(b) and 114: maximum penalty a fine of $10,000 and a mandatory disqualification of six months.

4      New Zealand Police v Sutherland [2022] NZDC 12479. The totals derive from the Judge’s separate sentences:

(a)for dangerous driving: $1,500 plus $130 court costs, and 12 months’ disqualification;

(b)for refusing to accompany: $500 plus $130 court costs and six months’ disqualification concurrently; and

(c)for failing to stop: $500 plus $130 court costs, and six months’ disqualification cumulative on the 12 months’ disqualification.

[5]                 Mr Sutherland then reached for the keys in the ignition of his car in an attempt to turn the car back on. He was arrested. After a short struggle…

Continue reading Sutherland v Police

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Sutherland v Police [2022] NZHC 2399
Case
[2022] NZHC 2399
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Sutherland v Police, the appellant, Jamie Sutherland, appealed against the sentence imposed by the District Court for his conviction of dangerous driving, refusing to accompany an enforcement officer, and failing to remain stopped when stopped by an enforcement officer. The District Court imposed a fine of $2,500 and disqualified Mr Sutherland from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for 18 months. Mr Sutherland contended that the disqualification period should have been no longer than 12 months. The court considered the appeal on the basis that the total sentence was manifestly excessive and failed to take into account totality principles. The court found that the disqualification period was within the range that is supportable when cases such as Lester, Kelly, and Stewart are considered. The primary purpose of a disqualification is to protect the public and reflect the seriousness of the offending. The court found that the disqualification period was appropriate given the seriousness of the offending and the fines imposed on Mr Sutherland. The appeal was dismissed.

This case highlights the importance of considering the totality of the sentence when imposing a disqualification period. The court found that the disqualification period was within the range that is supportable when cases such as Lester, Kelly, and Stewart are considered. The court found that the disqualification period was appropriate given the seriousness of the offending and the fines imposed on Mr Sutherland. The court rejected the argument that the disqualification period was manifestly excessive and failed to take into account totality principles. The court found that the disqualification period was within the range that is supportable when cases such as Lester, Kelly, and Stewart are considered. The court rejected the argument that the disqualification period was manifestly excessive and failed to take into account totality principles.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.