Tocker v Ministry of Justice Collections HC Wellington CRI 2009-435-4

[2010] NZHC 1033

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI 2010-435-4

BETWEEN  VAUGHAN CHARLES PHILIP TOCKER Appellant

ANDMINISTRY OF JUSTICE COLLECTIONS Respondent

Hearing:         18 May 2010

Appearances: Appellant appears in person

K E Salmond for Respondent

Judgment:      18 May 2010

ORAL JUDGMENT OF MILLER J

[1]      The District Court remitted Mr Tocker’s outstanding fines of $10,753.52, and substituted  a  sentence  of  60  hours  community  work.    He  appeals  against  that sentence.

[2]      The  fines  were  accumulated  over  a  long  period,  mostly  for  driving infringements and minor offences.

[3]      A report prepared under s 88 of the Summary Proceedings Act and dated 7

January 2010 recorded that he has insufficient means to pay the fines.  He is on a benefit  but  all  his  money  is  used  in  living  costs.     Community  work  was recommended.

[4]      Mr Tocker appeared on 18 February, when he was told that the fines would be remitted if he returned on 4 March with his driver’s licence and his car registered

and warranted.   He did appear on 4 March, having met those requirements.   The

VAUGHAN CHARLES PHILIP TOCKER V MINISTRY OF JUSTICE COLLECTIONS HC WN CRI 2010-

435-4  18 May 2010

Judge explained that he would ordinarily be sentenced to 100 hours community work, but because he had got his licence and so forth, the hours would be reduced to

60.

[5]      A myriad of grounds were cited on appeal, supported by submissions that were confused and almost entirely irrelevant to this appeal.   The substance of the appeal appears to be twofold:   he did not know that community work would be imposed when the fines were remitted, and he suffers from a disability which means he may not be able to physically complete the sentence.

[6]      The first of these grounds is without substance.  There is no suggestion that the procedure in s 88 of the Summary Proceedings Act was not followed;   that section envisages that the Registrar will prepare a report, which was done, and the Court will consider the financial position of the defendant.   The Court may then sentence him to community work, subject to ss 55 to 80 of the Sentencing Act. Another  Judge  had  earlier  adjourned  the  application  for  an  assessment  whether Mr Tocker could do community work, after he had indicated that he would turn up but suffered a disability.   So he was on notice that community work was under consideration.

[7]      Even if he was under a misapprehension about that, it does not follow that the appeal must be allowed.   On the merits, there can be no possible objection to a decision to remit fines, which Mr Tocker plainly was not going to pay, and substitute a modest sentence of community work.   It is almost inconceivable that remission would be associated with no alternative penalty.  Mr Tocker complained that but for the Judge’s promise he would not have got his vehicle roadworthy and himself licensed.   Since he plainly intended to keep driving, he  cannot complain about having to meet these requirements.

[8]      With respect to his capacity to complete a sentence there is no evidence.  It appears that an assessment has been done that indicates some mental health and perhaps alcohol issues, but there is nothing to suggest he is physically unable to work.

[9]      The sentence was properly imposed and is not manifestly excessive.    The appeal is dismissed.

Miller J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor’s Office, Wellington for Respondent