Wright v Police - [2020] NZHC 2980

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2020-409-152

[2020] NZHC 2980

BETWEEN
NICHOLAS PETER WILLIAM WRIGHT

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE and DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Respondents

Hearing: On submissions filed 23 October 2020, 5 March 2020

Appearances:

E F Nicol for Appellant

A M Harvey for Respondent

Judgment:

11 November 2020

JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J

Introduction

[1] On 15 September 2020, Nicholas Wright was sentenced by Judge Brandts- Giesen to four months and two weeks’ home detention and disqualified from driving for six months. He had pleaded guilty to a charge of reckless receiving and a charge of breaching a community work sentence.1 Mr Wright appeals against the disqualification on the ground the order for disqualification should not have been made.

1 Police v Wright [2020] NZDC 18928.

WRIGHT v NZ POLICE [2020] NZHC 2980 [11 November 2020]

Facts

[2] Between 6 pm on 14 December 2019 and 10 am on 15 December 2019 the victim’s Nissan Navara (“the stolen car”), valued at $33,000, was stolen. Mr Wright came into possession of the stolen car.

[3] On 3 January 2020, Mr Wright purchased a Nissan Navara with its own licence number (“Mr Wright’s car”). On 5 January 2020, an associate of Mr Wright changed the ownership of Mr Wright’s car into his name. On 6 January 2020, the associate purchased new plates for Mr Wright’s car on the basis that the old plates were damaged. He was issued new plates with a new licence number.

[4] Mr Wright cut the chassis numbers out of the chassis of both Mr Wright’s car and of the stolen car. He then welded the number from Mr Wright’s car onto the chassis of the stolen car, grinding it back down to blend in (though this was still visible). Mr Wright then removed the manufacturer’s ID tag from Mr Wright’s car and riveted it onto the driver’s door B pillar of the stolen car (despite vehicles of 2018 manufacture having their ID tags on the driver’s door A pillar). This ID tag was a sticker and was peeled off, and replaced with a generic sticker half covering the glue residue left on the pillar.

District Court decision

[5] Judge Brandts-Giesen noted the sophistication in the steps Mr Wright took to avoid detection of his receipt of the stolen vehicle. The Judge adopted a starting point of 10 months’ imprisonment, relying in particular on the value of the vehicle. He then made an uplift of three months for previous dishonesty convictions and a further one- month uplift for the breach of his community work charge, arriving at 14 months. The Judge then gave a full 25 per cent discount for the guilty pleas (which he described as “probably somewhat generous”) and a further 10 per cent discount for Mr Wright’s suffering from anxiety. His Honour thus arrived at an indicative end sentence of nine months’ imprisonment. He converted this to four months and two weeks’ home…

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 Wright v Police

Details

AGLC: Wright v Police [2020] NZHC 2980
Case: [2020] NZHC 2980
Decision Date: 11 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wright v Police involved an appeal by Nicholas Wright against a sentence imposed by the District Court. Wright was convicted of reckless receiving of a stolen vehicle and breaching a community work sentence. The District Court imposed a sentence of four months and two weeks’ home detention and disqualified Wright from driving for six months. Wright appealed the disqualification on the basis that the order should not have been made. The appeal was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry. Wright was represented by E F Nicol, and the respondents, the New Zealand Police and the Department of Corrections, were represented by A M Harvey.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the District Court had the power to disqualify Wright from driving under section 124 of the Sentencing Act 2002. Section 124 allows a court to disqualify an offender from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence if the person is convicted of an imprisonable offence and the court is satisfied that the offence was facilitated by the use of a motor vehicle or that a motor vehicle was used by the offender for the purpose of facilitating their flight or avoiding their detection or arrest after the commission of the offence. The key question was whether Wright's offence met the jurisdictional threshold set out in section 124(2) of the Act.

The High Court found that the District Court had erred in making the disqualification order. The Court held that the disqualification order could only be made if the offence was facilitated by the use of a motor vehicle or if a motor vehicle was used to facilitate flight, detection, or arrest. In this case, Wright's crime was the act of recklessly coming into possession of the stolen vehicle, and his ability to drive did not contribute to the offence. Therefore, the disqualification order did not meet the jurisdictional threshold. The Court quashed the disqualification order and allowed the appeal.

In summary, the High Court determined that the District Court lacked the jurisdiction to disqualify Wright from driving under section 124 of the Sentencing Act 2002, as the offence did not meet the jurisdictional criteria. The appeal was allowed, and the disqualification order was set aside.

Orders