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
- AGLC
- Sutherland v Police [2022] NZHC 2399
- Case
- [2022] NZHC 2399
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.