REIRI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 3233

REIRI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 3233 [10 December 2019]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDTIMARU REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATE TIHI-O-MARU ROHECRI-2019-476-000027[2019] NZHC 3233BETWEEN LEIGH-MAREE TE AWHINA REIRIAppellantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentAND DARYL-MAREE REIRIRespondentHearing: On the papersCounsel: A R McRae for RespondentJudgment: 10 December 2019JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM JIntroduction[1] Daryl-Maree Reiri (Ms Reiri) pleaded guilty to one charge of driving whilstdisqualified. As part of her sentence, Judge Maze made an order for confiscation ofthe vehicle she was driving.1 That order is now appealed against by Ms Reiri's mother,Leigh-Maree Reiri (the appellant). The police do not oppose the appeal and agree itmay be dealt with on the papers.Facts[2] Ms Reiri was disqualified from driving on 2 February 2018 for a period of6 months. At about 12.25 am on 31 March 2018, she was driving a Toyota car on1 Police v Reiri [2019] NZDC 21415.Dixon Street, Masterton. The police conducted a traffic stop, where roadside checksrevealed Ms Reiri was disqualified from driving.District Court decision[3] Judge Maze noted Ms Reiri had one previous conviction for offending of adifferent nature. She authorised seizure of the vehicle, ordered Ms Reiri to pay a fineof $200 and court costs of $130, and disqualified her from driving for six monthsstarting from 1 August 2018.Principles on appeal[4] Section 129EA Sentencing Act 2002 provides:129EA Appeal against confiscation by third party(1) If the court orders the confiscation of a motor vehicle under section 128,129, or 129A, a person (other than the offender or, as the case may be, thesubstitute for the offender) may, within 20 working days after the date ofthe order, or within any further time that the appropriate court allows,appeal to the appropriate court against the order on the ground that theconfiscation is causing, or will cause, undue hardship to the appellant orany other person (other than the offender or, as the case may be, thesubstitute for the offender).[5] "Undue hardship" requires more than the hardship that would be normallyexpected to be experienced as a result of confiscation.2 It connotes "serious hardship",or excessive or greater hardship than the circumstances warrant.3Submissions[6] Both Ms Reiri and her mother, the appellant, have written letters to the Courtoutlining the circumstances of the vehicle in question since the offending. Both agreethat the appellant took "ownership" of the vehicle on 14 June 2018 when she paid forit to be released from impoundment. The vehicle was legally registered under hername in September 2019. The appellant was unaware of the order for confiscation,and therefore spent a considerable amount of money on the vehicle before receiving a2 Dalton v Auckland City [1971] NZLR 548 (SC) at 549-550.3 R v Wallace [2001] 18 CRNZ 577 (CA) at [7]; Komene v Police [2016] NZHC 2120 at [16].letter regarding confiscation on 1 October 2019. She will be unable to afford anothercar any time soon.[7] In addition to the wasted money she has spent on the vehicle, the appellantstates that she relies on it to get to work, do the school run, get groceries and completeother everyday chores. Ms Reiri now has a baby daughter, whom the appellant takesto appointments using the vehicle. Ms Reiri writes in her letter that confiscation ofthe vehicle would affect her mother greatly, and that she is ashamed and embarrassedof what she has put her through. She says she is willing to pay a further fine orsubstitute punishment so the vehicle is not confiscated from her mother.Analysis[8] The police do not oppose this appeal, and I am satisfied that confiscation wouldcause undue hardship to the appellant. It is clear that the vehicle has been under herpossession rather than her daughter's for a considerable time, and it would be undulydetrimental to her to lose it after investing so much money in it. I also accept it isappropriate to waive the requirement to comply with the 20 day appeal time framegiven the issue only came to the appellant's attention so recently.Conclusion[9] The appeal is allowed, and the order for confiscation of the Toyota vehicleGUK825 quashed.Solicitors:Crown Solicitor, Timaru