W v Police HC Timaru Cri-2009-476-5

[2009] NZHC 331

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

CRI-2009-476-000005

W

v

POLICE

Hearing:         17 March 2009

Appearances: Appellant in person

C A O'Connor for Crown

Judgment:      17 March 2009

ORAL JUDGMENT OF HON. JUSTICE FRENCH

[1]      This is an appeal against sentence.

[2]      Mrs W  , who represented herself before me, was convicted in the District Court on one charge of careless use of a vehicle.  She was fined $250, and ordered to pay Court costs of $180.

[3]      The facts of the offending were that in the early hours of the morning of Thursday 22 January, Mrs W   was driving a Nissan motor vehicle.  The vehicle was involved in an accident in Angland Avenue, Timaru.  The vehicle was seen to drive into the fence and gates, then drive off.  It was later located off College Road,

with extensive damage to the front.

W V POLICE HC TIM CRI-2009-476-000005  17 March 2009

[4]      When interviewed by the police, Mrs W   admitted that she had caused the damage accidentally by driver error, then panicked and driven off because she knew she was forbidden to drive.

[5]      On appeal, Mrs W   has advanced two grounds of appeal.  The first is that earlier that night she had been stopped by two police officers.  She said they knew she did not have a licence, and so accordingly they should have arrested her.  If they had “done their job”, as she put it, the ensuing problems would never have happened.

[6]      Obviously this ground of appeal is not sustainable.  Mrs W   has to take responsibility for her own actions.

[7]      The second ground of appeal is that the sentence was manifestly excessive because of Mrs W  ’s personal circumstances.  She tells me that she is virtually destitute, of no fixed abode, having been the victim of two burglaries and a series of other misfortunes.

[8]      Mr O’Connor, for the police, submits that the sentencing Judge was aware of this history, as is evident from the rather generous approach he took towards the sentence.

[9]      It is also pointed out that there was an aggravating feature in this case in that Mrs W   drove off after the accident, yet the Judge has imposed what can be described as a nominal fine only.

[10]     I accept that for Mrs W   it may not be nominal, however on appeal I

cannot say that this sentence was manifestly excessive.

[11]     The appeal is accordingly dismissed.   I do, however, recommend to Mrs W   that she consult Collections immediately about making arrangements to pay off this fine, or to look at some other alternative.

-Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Timaru

Copy to Appellant