Waara v Police - [2024] NZHC 1726

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2024-454-3 & 4

[2024] NZHC 1726

BETWEEN
ANDREW RICHARD WAARA

Appellant

AND

POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 8 May 2024

Appearances:

E A Hall for Appellant N H Brown for Crown

Judgment:

27 June 2024

JUDGMENT OF CULL J

[1] Mr Waara appeals his sentence of two years and seven months’ imprisonment1 following a guilty plea to the charges of burglary,2 receiving a vehicle,3 unlawful possession of ammunition,4 dangerous driving (x 3),5 failing to stop,6 failing to stop (aggravated x 3),7 driving while suspended,8 driving while suspended (third or

1      Police v Waara [2024] NZDC 2595.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a). Maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      Sections 246(1) and 247(a). Maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
4      Arms Act 1983, 51(1)(b). Maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment.
5      Land Transport Act, s 35(1)(b) and subs (2). Maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a $4,500 fine. Mandatory disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver licence for at least six months.
6      Section 52A(1)(a) and subs (2). Maximum penalty of $10,000 fine.
7      Section 52A(1)(a) and subs (2) and (3). Maximum penalty of $10,000 fine. Mandatory disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver licence for six months.
8      Section 32(1)(c) and subs (3). Maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a $4,500 fine. Mandatory disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver licence for at least six months.

WAARA v POLICE [2024] NZHC 1726 [27 June 2024]

subsequent x 2),9 reckless driving,10 careless driving,11 possession of methamphetamine pipe (x 2),12 possession of cannabis (x 2),13 possession of cannabis resin,14 common assault15 and resisting police.16

[2] In summary, the sentencing Judge’s approach, although described as concurrent, was cumulative in effect. After taking into account the challenges to the starting points and the duplication of the charges, as well as the Judge’s reduction of 18 months for totality, I find that the end sentence is not manifestly excessive.

What happened?

[3] The offending occurred over a period of one year and five months, between 25 June 2022 and 10 November 2023. On 25 June 2022, Mr Waara drove past police in Palmerston North approximately 30 kph over the speed limit. The police followed him and signalled him to stop. He continued to drive at speed, weaving between traffic, before he eventually came to a stop. This was one of the instances of dangerous driving and failing to stop.

[4] On 18 October 2022, Mr Waara was suspended from driving for three months due to excess demerit points. The police observed him driving while the suspension was still in place on 20 November 2022, 30 December 2022, and 14 January 2023. On 20 November 2022, Mr Waara was observed driving at excessive speeds and overtaking vehicles in a dangerous manner, resulting in further dangerous driving offending.

9 Section 32(1)(c) and subs (4). Maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment or $6,000 fine. Mandatory disqualification from holding…

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 Waara v Police

Details

AGLC: Waara v Police [2024] NZHC 1726
Case: [2024] NZHC 1726
Decision Date: 27 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Waara v Police involves Andrew Richard Waara's appeal against his sentence of two years and seven months' imprisonment following his guilty plea to multiple charges including burglary, receiving a vehicle, unlawful possession of ammunition, various driving offences, drug possession, and assault. The court was required to decide if the sentence imposed by the sentencing Judge was manifestly excessive and whether there were any errors in the process of sentencing. The court examined the appropriateness of the starting points for the burglary, receiving, and driving offences, considering factors such as the nature of the offending, the principles of cumulative versus concurrent sentencing, and the totality principle. The court concluded that while some starting points were excessive, the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive and the appeal was dismissed. The court's reasoning involved a detailed analysis of the sentencing process and the nature of the offending, ensuring that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offences committed by Waara over a period of one year and five months.

Orders