W v Police HC Christchurch CRI 2008 409 8

[2008] NZHC 185

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2008 409 008

W

Appellant

v

POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         21 February 2008

Appearances: K H Cook for Appellant

K B Bell for Respondent

Judgment:      21 February 2008

ORAL JUDGMENT OF CHISHOLM J

[1]      Having pleaded guilty to charges of driving with excess blood alcohol and careless driving, the appellant was ordered to pay a fine of $1,000 and reparation of

$5,363.76.  He was disqualified for a period of 15 months.  This is an appeal against the length of the disqualification.

[2]      The appellant is a 23 year old hairdresser with no previous convictions.  On

17 June 2006 she drove with slightly more than two and a half times the legal limit of alcohol and crashed into a parked car.

W V POLICE HC CHCH CRI 2008 409 008  21 February 2008

[3]      When imposing sentence the Judge said that he gave the appellant credit for her ability and willingness to “go beyond the usual and to raise the money quickly to pay the reparation for the damage”.  He noted that she had the ability to pay a fine which he described as “the first port of call” and hoped that it would be a salutary lesson.

[4]      Mr Cook has provided constructive written and oral submissions.  In essence he submitted that the 15 months disqualification is manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.  He emphasised that the appellant is a first offender with an otherwise exemplary record and that at the time of this incident she was at a low ebb as a result of the death of a friend.  He said that she acknowledges that her actions were stupid and regrets that she made the decision to drive.

[5]      Mr Cook submitted that the disqualification was out of line.   He explained the consequences that it will carry for the appellant in terms of her employment. While it is not suggested that it will prevent her from continuing her employment as a hairdresser, it is clear that some complications will arise.  His submission was that as a matter of sentencing principle the disqualification should have been closer to the lower end of the range.   He also drew attention to the observations in Awatere v Police (High Court, Greymouth Registry, AP 9/94,27 June 1994) and Duncan v Police (High Court, Christchurch Registry, CRI 34/03, 17 July 2003) to the effect that the disqualification should be tailored to the period that is reasonably necessary to protect the public and that sentences should be kept as short as possible in achieving the underlying end of road safety.

[6]      Ms Bell referred the Court to McEachen v Police [1995] 2 NZLR 251 in which statistical information was considered. She also mentioned that she had made inquiries about the level of disqualification in the Christchurch District Court for first blood alcohol offenders. To the extent that this information should be taken into account, it seems that the usual range is 10 to 12 months. Ms Bell noted, however, that in this case there was a very high blood count and an accident which, she submitted, justified the Judge in imposing a longer than usual period of disqualification.

[7]      This  is,  of  course,  an  appeal  against  the  exercise  of  a  discretion.    The principles are well settled and do not need to be repeated.  I note that in McEachen v Police statistics before that Court drawn from 527 sentencing decisions of first drink drive  offenders  indicated a  disqualification  range  of  six  to  18  months,  with  an average of 9.35 months.   That would tend to indicate that, on the information Ms Bell has provided, the usual period of disqualification in Christchurch might be slightly longer than elsewhere.

[8]      In the end I have to decide whether the length of this disqualification, which is clearly at the highest end of the range, justifies interference by this Court.  Despite Mr Cook’s well considered arguments to the contrary, I am afraid that I cannot say that the Judge erred in the exercise of his discretion in this case.  He was entitled to take into account, as he obviously did, that there was a very high alcohol content and that there was an accident.

[9]      The appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:         K H Cook, Christchurch

Crown Solicitor, Christchurch