PARANIHI v POLICE [2016] NZHC 69
Because s65(4) required an indefinite disqualification and s56(4A) excludes application of s56(4)(b), the Judge lacked power to impose an additional finite disqualification; the two-year finite term was therefore beyond jurisdiction and must be quashed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] NZHC 69
- Parties
- Appellant: Larnia Louis Aroha Paranihi; Respondent: New Zealand Police
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 3 February 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Sentencing Appeal / Appeal
- Outcome
- Two-year finite disqualification quashed; the indefinite disqualification and other sentencing orders were left intact.
- Legal Topics
- Driving Under the Influence, Disqualification of Drivers, Statutory Interpretation, Jurisdictional Error
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Larnia Louis Aroha Paranihi
Appellant
New Zealand Police
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing Appeal / Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether s56(4)(b) applied given s56(4A) and s65 indefinite disqualification
- 2 Whether the Judge exceeded jurisdiction by imposing a finite disqualification in addition to an indefinite disqualification
- 3 Whether the duty under s65 to consider commutation to an alcohol interlock licence under s65A applied or was rendered moot
Ratio Decidendi
Because s65(4) required an indefinite disqualification and s56(4A) excludes application of s56(4)(b), the Judge lacked power to impose an additional finite disqualification; the two-year finite term was therefore beyond jurisdiction and must be quashed.
Court Disposition
Two-year finite disqualification quashed; the indefinite disqualification and other sentencing orders were left intact.
Orders
- Two-year finite term of disqualification quashed.
- Other sentencing orders including 100 hours community work, 12 months supervision, 4 months community detention and the indefinite disqualification under s65 upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
PARANIHI v POLICE [2016] NZHC 69 [3 February 2016]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDHAMILTON REGISTRYCRI-2015-419-000043[2016] NZHC 69BETWEEN LARNIA LOUIS AROHA PARANIHIAppellantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentHearing: On the papersAppearances: G D Prentice for AppellantJ E Tarrant for RespondentJudgment: 3 February 2016JUDGMENT OF KEANE JThis judgment was delivered by me on 3 February 2016 at 3pmpursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarSolicitors:Public Defence Service, HamiltonCrown Solicitor, Hamilton[1] On 13 December 2014 Larnia Paranihi was apprehended driving her car in Ulster Street, Hamilton, when the proportion of alcohol in her breath exceeded 400 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. It was 1029 micrograms. This was her third such offence within five years.[2] On 6 October 2015, as a result of a guilty plea that she had entered earlier, Ms Paranihi was sentenced by Judge P R Connell in the District Court, Hamilton, to 100 hours community work, to supervision for 12 months and to four months community detention. Judge Connell also disqualified her indefinitely, as he was obliged to do, and, additionally, disqualified her for two years.[3] On this appeal against her sentence Ms Paranihi takes issue only with the two year finite term of disqualification; and, as the respondent concedes, in disqualifying her for that term as well as indefinitely the Judge exceeded his jurisdiction. (As a result I excused counsel, at their request, from having to appear.)[4] Ms Paranihi's offence, in the third or subsequent category, did on the face of it make her liable under s 56(4)(b) of the Land Transport Act 1998 to a minimum one year finite term of disqualification. Section 56(4)(b) says:the court must order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for more than 1 year.[5] Section 56(4)(b), however, is subject to s 56(4A), which states that"Subsection (4)(b) does not apply if an order is made under section 65"; and, as the Judge recognised, s 65(4) obliged him to disqualify Ms Paranihi indefinitely under s 65 because this was her third such offence within five years.[6] Consequently, the Judge did not come under the duty s 56(4)(b) imposes to disqualify Ms Paranihi for at least one year. Section 56(4A) relieved him of that duty and denied him of the power to disqualify finitely which is inherent in that duty. In imposing the two year finite term, therefore, he exceeded his jurisdiction and that order must be, and is, quashed.11 Han v New Zealand Police [2014] NZHC 701.[7] I should also add that, in this case, the Judge's duty to consider whether to commute the indefinite disqualification order he made under s 65 to an alcohol interlock licence disqualification order under s 65A2 had no practical significance, because he made a s 129 order confiscating Ms Paranihi's car; and that is not in issue on this appeal._____________P.J. Keane J2 Wilson v New Zealand Police [2014] NZHC 2474 at [51].