Taiatini v Police

[2015] NZHC 1886

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI 2015-463-24 [2015] NZHC 1886

BETWEEN

ROBERT TAIATINI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	11 August 2015
Counsel:	R Vigor-Brown for Appellant N Tahana for Respondent
Judgment:	11 August 2015

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF HEATH J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Rotorua
Counsel:

R Vigor-Brown, Rotorua

TAIATINI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZHC 1886 [11 August 2015]

[1]      Mr Taiatini was charged with driving a motor vehicle on State Highway 5, Rotorua, in a manner which having regard to all the circumstances of the case might have been dangerous to the public or any person.   The driving occurred on 16

January 3015.  A plea of guilty to that charge was entered on 4 February 2015.  Mr

Taiatini was remanded for sentence on 19 March 2015.

[2]      Mr  Taiatini  was  sentenced  in  the  District  Court  at  Rotorua  by  Judge Bouchier.1    After describing relevant facts, the Judge considered that a sentence of community detention should be imposed, together with supervision on special conditions.  Mr Taiatini was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for three years from the date of sentencing.

[3]      Mr Taiatini appeals to this Court against sentence.  No issue is taken with the term of community detention or supervision imposed.  The issue is whether the order for disqualification should be either revoked or reduced.   The main plank of the appeal involves the need to remove the disqualification order because of the hardship caused by Mr Taiatini wanting to drive a motor vehicle for a living.

[4]      I have canvassed some of the issues this morning with Mr Vigor-Brown, for Mr Taiatini. Although there are references to Mr Taiatini having “held down a job as a truck driver”, in a psychological report obtained recently, there was no such reference made in the pre-sentence report that the sentencing Judge considered. Indeed, in that report Mr Taiatini was said to be in receipt of a sickness benefit.  Mr Vigor-Brown informs me, having taken further instructions from Mr Taiatini today, that he is not in receipt of a sickness benefit.  No doubt that can be checked.

[5]      Mr Vigor-Brown has also referred to me a job application form prepared by Mr Taiatini, which is dated 16 January 2015, the same day as the offending occurred. It does not seem that anything came of that application.  Mr Taiatini applied for a position as a truck driver with a local company.

[6]      During the course of this morning’s hearing I expressed some concern about the lack of evidence linking the appeal point to a need for Mr Taiatini to hold a driver licence.

[7]      While I do have reservations about the length of the disqualification imposed by the District Court Judge, without other compelling evidence there would be no basis to remove the disqualification completely.  Indeed, it is difficult to see how it could be reduced by much more than 50%, on the best view of the case for Mr Taiatini.   However, Mr Vigor-Brown has taken instructions and has asked for an adjournment so that evidence can be put before the Court for consideration.  I am prepared to accede to that course.  Counsel will also consider whether a better option is to apply for a limited licence to the District Court.

[8]      The  appeal  is  adjourned  for  hearing  at  2.15pm  on  19  October  2015. Permission is given to adduce further evidence on appeal in relation to the employment issue and the disqualification order.   So far as that is concerned, any affidavits  in  support  of  the  appeal  shall  be  filed  and  served  on  or  before  18

September 2015.  Any affidavits in reply shall be filed and served on or before 2

October 2015.  Any notice that a witness is required to attend for cross-examination shall be given to the opposing party and the Court on or before 10 October 2015.

[9]      On   30  April   2015,   when   considering   an   earlier   application   for   an adjournment made on behalf of Mr Taiatini, Woodhouse J suspended the operation of the disqualification order.   That was done pending further order of the Court, or determination of the appeal.   The community detention and supervision sentences were to commence immediately following his decision.

[10]     In light of the information currently before me and the preliminary view I have expressed as to the likelihood that any appeal may reduce the disqualification order,2   I see no  basis  to  continue that  suspension  pending determination  of the appeal.  It is revoked with immediate effect.  That should not cause hardship as Mr Taiatini  does  not  presently  have  any  job  offer  and  a  separate  application  for

suspension could be made if one were available and evidence could be put before the

Court to that effect.

[11]     The appeal stands adjourned until 2.15pm on 19 October 2015. [12]  I thank counsel for their assistance this morning.

P R Heath J