Venn v Police - [2024] NZHC 1932

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2024-488-000045

[2024] NZHC 1932

BETWEEN
SCOTT JASON VENN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 10 July 2024

Appearances:

M Ryan for Appellant

B Bosomworth for Respondent

Judgment:

15 July 2024

JUDGMENT OF GORDON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 15 July 2024 at 3 pm

………………………………
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Marsden Woods Inskip Smith, Crown Solicitor, Whangarei M Ryan, Barrister, Auckland

VENN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 1932 [15 July 2024]

[1] The appellant, Scott Venn, pleaded guilty to a charge of driving a motor vehicle in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances, might have been dangerous to the public and thereby caused injury to his passenger.1 On 6 May 2024, Judge D J McDonald sentenced Mr Venn to 14 months’ imprisonment and disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver licence for three years.2

[2] On appeal, Mr Venn says that because of an issue as to whether he consented to electronic monitoring Judge McDonald erred by declining to adjourn the sentencing or by declining to grant him leave to apply for home detention.

Background

[3]The summary of facts states that on 18 October 2022, at approximately

9.30 am, Mr Venn was driving North along State Highway 10. His partner was in the front passenger seat. While travelling at excessive speeds, Mr Venn crossed onto the opposite side of the road to overtake three vehicles in front of him. In doing so, he narrowly avoided a head-on collision with a truck travelling in the opposite direction. When Mr Venn re-entered the correct side of the road, he lost control of the vehicle due to his excessive speed. He crossed back over to the opposite side of the road, became airborne and impacted approximately three metres up a tree before ricocheting into a paddock.

[4] Mr Venn was removed from the wreckage by members of the public who stopped to help. His partner remained trapped in the wreckage until firefighters were able to cut her free. Mr Venn received moderate injuries. His partner received a femoral fracture and a perforated bowel. Both were airlifted to hospital.

District Court decision

[5] Judge McDonald adopted a starting point of 14 months’ imprisonment to take into account the serious risks that Mr Venn’s driving posed to his partner, other drivers and to himself. The Judge also mentioned the burden the resulting hospital treatment

1 Land Transport Act 1998, s 36(1)(b). Maximum penalty: five years’ imprisonment or a $20,000 fine, and disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver licence for one year or more.
2 New Zealand Police v Venn [2024] NZDC 9947.

had on the health system and taxpayers, as well as the serious problem of reckless driving in Northland.

[6] Judge McDonald gave a 15 per cent discount for Mr Venn’s late guilty plea. However, the Judge considered that neither Mr Venn’s previous period of electronically monitored bail for separate…

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 Venn v Police

Details

AGLC: Venn v Police [2024] NZHC 1932
Case: [2024] NZHC 1932
Decision Date: 15 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Scott Venn, the appellant, was convicted and sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for three years for driving in a manner which might have been dangerous to the public, causing injury to his passenger. Venn appealed on the basis that Judge McDonald erred in not granting an adjournment to address whether he had consented to electronic monitoring and in not granting leave for him to apply for home detention. The core legal issues were whether the District Court judge erred in not considering whether to grant leave to apply for home detention under s 80I of the Sentencing Act 2002, and whether the judge should have adjourned the sentencing hearing to resolve the dispute over Venn's consent to electronic monitoring. The court held that while the judge did not err in not considering leave to apply for home detention, as Venn did not wish to serve such a sentence, there was an error in not adjourning the hearing to resolve the dispute over his consent to electronic monitoring. The court remitted the matter back to the District Court for resentencing, directing that a further pre-sentence report with a home detention appendix be obtained before sentencing Venn afresh.

Orders