Komene v New Zealand Police [2016] NZHC 2120

Komene v New Zealand Police [2016] NZHC 2120 [7 September 2016]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDTAURANGA REGISTRYCRI-2016-470-16[2016] NZHC 2120BETWEEN ANDREW JAMES KOMENEAppellantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentHearing: 7 September 2016Counsel: JM Owers for appellantA Pollett and AZM Shore for respondentJudgment: 7 September 2016(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF FAIRE JThis judgment was delivered by me on 7 September 2016pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarDateSolicitors: Public Defence Service, TaurangaCrown Solicitor, TaurangaThe appeal[1] The appellant appeals that part of a sentence imposed on him by her Honour Judge Parsons on 11 May 2016 pursuant to which the confiscation of a Honda station-wagon was ordered.1The sentence[2] The appellant was convicted of driving with excess blood alcohol on the third or subsequent time. He was sentenced in the Tauranga District Court on 11 May 2016 when the following orders were made:(a) He was imprisoned for 18 months;2(b) A zero alcohol licence order was made pursuant to s 65B of the Land Transport Act 1998;3(c) An indefinite disqualification was ordered pursuant to s 65(2) of the Land Transport Act 1998;4(d) He was disqualified from driving for one year and one day;5 and(e) The motor vehicle he was driving was confiscated pursuant to s 129 of the Sentencing Act 2002.6[3] The appellant filed a letter from his partner, Ms Matthews, for the court'sconsideration on 23 May 2016. The issue of an order of confiscation of the motor vehicle was considered by Judge Parsons. In minutes dated 24 and 26 May 2016, the Judge ruled that the order was to be made and a warrant issued.1 New Zealand Police v Komene [2016] NZDC 8338.2 At [13].3 At [16].4 At [16].5 At [11].6 At [16].The grounds for the appeal[4] The appellant appeals the confiscation order and advances the following grounds:(a) He was not aware that the vehicle was subject to confiscation at the time of sentencing;(b) He, therefore, did not have the opportunity to present his case challenging the confiscation;(c) The confiscation of the vehicle will result in undue hardship to another person, namely his partner, Rachel Puhi Matthews; and(d) It is in the interests of justice that his appeal is allowed.[5] This appeal against sentence is brought pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 which provides that the appeal court must allow the appeal if satisfied that:7(a) for any reason, there is an error in the sentence imposed on conviction; and(b) a different sentence should be imposed.[6] In any other case, the court must dismiss the appeal.8The law[7] Section 129 of the Sentencing Act 2002 provides:129 Confiscation of motor vehicle after second offence(1) This section applies if,—7 Section 250(2).8 Section 250(3).(a) on or after 26 July 1996, a person commits an offence (the"first offence") against any of sections 32(1)(a) or (b),35(1)(a) or (b), 36(1), 36AA, 6A(1)(a) or (c), 39(1), 56(1) or(2), 57A(1), 58(1), 60(1), 61(1), 61(2) or 62(1) of the Land Transport Act 1998 (which relate to driving offences) or section 171 of the Crimes Act 1961 (but only where the manslaughter involved the use of a motor vehicle); and(b) within 4 years after the date of the commission of that offence, the person commits a further offence (the second offence) against any of those provisions of the Land Transport Act 1998.(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), it does not matter whether or not the second offence is of the same kind as the first offence, but it must be an offence that arises from a different incident from the one that gave rise to the first offence.(3) If the court by or before which the offender is convicted of the second offence is satisfied that any motor vehicle owned by the offender or in which the offender has any interest was being driven by, or in the charge of, the offender at the material time, the court must order that the motor vehicle be confiscated.(4) Despite subsection (3), the court must not make an order under that subsection if it will result in extreme hardship to the offender or undue hardship to any other person.(5) For the purposes of this section, a conviction for an offence against a provision of the Transport Act 1962 that corresponds to an offence specified in subsection (1) must be treated as a conviction for an offence specified in that subsection.[8] The appellant accepts that the provisions of s 129 of the Sentencing Act 2002apply. The current charge is a qualifying offence, as is the appellant's 2014conviction for refusing blood being a third or subsequent offence.Undue hardship[9] The issue in this case is whether the Judge made an error in finding that confiscation of the vehicle will not cause undue hardship to Ms Matthews.[10] Ms Matthews has provided an affidavit in support of this appeal. Its contents were not available to the District Court Judge at the time of sentencing.[11] Ms Matthews' affidavit raises three particular causes of hardship, namely:(a) She resides on the outskirts of Te Puke township. She has no alternative transport available to take her to and from Te Puke in order to attend to day-to-day tasks;(b) Her son and mother both reside in Waimana, which is approximately 90 kilometres from her home in the outskirts of Te Puke. Her mother has had a stroke and is immobile. Her son is too young to drive; and(c) She is looking for work in Te Puke. Before she can obtain work she will require a vehicle to take her to and from the place of employment.[12] Ms Matthews holds a full drivers' licence. She is now the registered ownerof the motor vehicle which has always been shared between her and the appellant. It is claimed that there is no regular bus service to and from where she resides. She has health issues, including depression. No medical evidence has been produced. She is currently receiving a benefit. She is not in a position to purchase another vehicle.[13] The respondent submits that Ms Matthews lives in walking or cycling distance to Te Puke and that this does not equate to undue hardship. Further, it is argued that the submission that Ms Matthews may need a car for a potential job is speculation without any supporting evidence.[14] In respect of travel to Waimana, the respondent submits that there are publicbus routes which travel from Tauranga to Whakatāne, stopping in Te Puke, as well as buses from Whakatāne to Ōpōtiki, via Waimana. Accordingly, the respondentsubmits that confiscation will not prevent Ms Matthews from visiting her son or her mother.[15] In relation to mental health, the respondent submits that medical evidence will normally be required before the court will find that there are justifiable grounds for a finding of undue hardship on medical grounds.Analysis[16] "Undue hardship" has been described as meaning "excessive or greaterhardship than the circumstances warranted".9[17] In Turua v Police, Venning J stated "[s]ection 129 involves concepts ofextreme hardship to an appellant, or undue hardship to another person. Undue hardship is clearly less than extreme hardship but is more than hardship. Hardship itself must be more than inconvenience."10[18] In this case, the fact that Ms Matthews lives outside Te Puke township may result in hardship as she would then need to walk several kilometres to access services such as the supermarket or medical centre. While the distance is able to be walked it is a substantial distance to walk with, for example, groceries. While this would be more than an inconvenience I am not convinced that the resulting impact inthis regard, when considered alone, could truly be considered 'undue hardship'.[19] Similarly, Ms Matthews is currently looking for work in Te Puke. She is hoping to get a job as a cleaner. Te Puke is within walking distance but the lack oftransport either by car or bus is likely to limit Ms Matthews' employment options,especially as cleaning jobs often involve working early in the morning or late at night.[20] Most compelling, in my view, is the effect on the ability of Ms Matthews to visit her son who lives in Waimana, as neither her son nor her mother are able to drive. The distance between the two homes is substantial. The respondent has filed evidence showing the availability of bus routes between Te Puke and Waimana. Thejourney is in two legs, first a bus from Te Puke to Whakatāne and a second bus from Whakatāne to Waimana. The bus from Te Puke to Whakatāne only runs once a day in each direction. The bus travelling from Te Puke to Whakatāne is in the afternoonand the bus travelling from Whakatāne to Te Puke is in the morning. The bus doesnot run on Sundays.9 Dalton v Auckland City: Porter v Auckland City [1971] NZLR 548 (SC) at 550.10 Turua v Police [2013] NZHC 2913 at [9].[21] The bus between Whakatāne and Waimana runs only on Mondays and Wednesdays. The bus from Te Puke arrives in Whakatāne at 4.00pm. The bus toWaimana leaves Whakatāne at 4.00pm. This may make the connection difficult.Ms Matthews would not be able to make a day trip to see her son or make a return trip in the weekend. She would only be able to travel on Mondays and Wednesdays and only in one direction on each day.[22] It must also be remembered that Ms Matthews does not live in Te Puke itself and that the walk to catch the bus would also add to the journey. It may not be impossible for her to visit her son if the vehicle were to be confiscated, but in my view, the bus journey is so difficult and restrictive as to constitute undue hardship.[23] I agree with the respondent that Ms Matthews' indication that she has healthissues, without further evidence or confirmation would not be sufficient to establish undue hardship on medical grounds.11 However, the health issues in this case are not held out to be, in my understanding, the main reason for the undue hardship.[24] In my view, the confiscation of the vehicle would cause undue hardship to Ms Matthews arising mainly, but not solely, from the difficultly that she would then have in seeing her son.[25] I have the benefit of the precise position in relation to the travel options, which was not available to the learned District Court Judge. That additional material has been essential to my conclusion that the confiscation will cause undue hardship to Ms Matthews.[26] Although it was not appealed, I note that the District Court Judge imposed a finite disqualification and an indefinite disqualification. Justice Keane recently held that s 56(4A) of the Land Transport Act relieves the Judge of the duty to disqualify finitely when an indefinite disqualification is ordered.12 His Honour held that in doing so, the Judge had exceeded his jurisdiction and the finite disqualification was quashed.13 .11 Gray v New Zealand Police [2015] NZHC 81 at [55].12 Paranihi v New Zealand Police [2016] NZHC 69.13 At [6].Result[27] The appeal is allowed. The order confiscating the Honda Station Wagon is quashed. For the avoidance of doubt any order seizing the vehicle is also quashed____________________JA Faire J