ASHBY v POLICE [2021] NZHC 1306

ASHBY v POLICE [2021] NZHC 1306 [4 June 2021]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDPALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATE PAPAIOEA ROHECRI-2021-454-13[2021] NZHC 1306BETWEEN TYSON RAYMOND PATRICK ASHBYAppellantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentHearing (via AVL): 27 May 2021Appearances: S J Parsons for the AppellantE Pairman for the RespondentJudgment: 4 June 2021JUDGMENT OF GAULT JSolicitors:Mr S J Parsons, Cooper Cross Ltd, Palmerston NorthMs E Pairman, Ben Vanderkolk & Associates, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Palmerston NorthIntroduction[1] Mr Ashby appeals against an overall sentence of two years and nine months'imprisonment imposed by Judge B R Northwood in the Palmerston North DistrictCourt on 12 March 2021,1 following convictions on the following charges:(a) two charges of assault on person in family relationship;2(b) two charges of possession of an offensive weapon;3(c) two charges of wilful damage;4(d) three charges of driving while disqualified;5(e) two charges of theft of property (under $500);6(f) four charges of operating a motor vehicle recklessly;7(g) one charge of threatening language;8(h) one charge of driver gave false information as to own identity;9(i) one charge of failing to stop when followed by red/blue flashinglights;10 and(j) one charge of breach of conditions of intensive supervision.111 New Zealand Police v Ashby [2021] NZDC 4471 (sentencing notes of Judge B Northwood).2 Crimes Act 1961, s 194A: maximum penalty 2 years' imprisonment.3 Crimes Act 1961, s 202A(4)(b): maximum penalty 2 years' imprisonment; and Crimes Act 1961,s 202(4)(a): maximum penalty 3 years' imprisonment.4 Summary Offences Act 1981, s 11(1)(a): maximum penalty 3 months' imprisonment, $2,000 fine.5 Land Transport Act 1998, ss 32(1)(a) and 32(4): maximum penalty 2 years' imprisonment,$6,000 fine.6 Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(d): maximum penalty 3 months' imprisonment.7 Land Transport Act 1998, s 35(1)(a): maximum penalty 3 months' imprisonment, $4,500 fine.8 Summary Offences Act 1981, s 21(1)(a): maximum penalty 3 months' imprisonment.9 Land Transport Act 1998, ss 52A(1)(c), 52A(2) and 114(3)(b): maximum penalty $10,000 fine.10 Land Transport Act 1998, ss 52A(1)(a)(ii), 52A(5), 52A(6) and 114(2): maximum penalty $10,000fine.11 Sentencing Act 2002, s 70A(a): maximum penalty 6 months' imprisonment or fine not exceeding$1,500.[2] Mr Ashby appeals on the narrow basis that the Judge erred in failing to applya discount for the personal factors identified in a s 27 cultural report.The offending29 March 2020 offending[3] On 29 March 2020, Mr Ashby, his partner of two and a half years (the victim)and Mr Ashby's three children were at their home address in Palmerston North.Mr Ashby located the victim's diary and became angry when he found she had beenwriting things about him. He ripped pages from the diary and set them on fire andyelled at the victim. Mr Ashby charged down the hallway towards the victim andjabbed her in the face with his right fist, yelling, "Should I just kick your head in?"Mr Ashby took the victim's cell phone and started questioning her about what he foundon the phone. He then threw her cell phone into a door, causing it to smash. The victimstood up but Mr Ashby pushed her onto a bed and into the wall, causing damage to thewall. The victim ran to a neighbour's address for safety, but Mr Ashby chased her andattempted to run into the neighbour's address. The occupant of the address toldMr Ashby to leave, which he did.5 May 2020 offending[4] On 5 May 2020, Mr Ashby was at the victim's address in Palmerston North.He and the victim became engaged in a verbal argument after the victim told him toleave. This enraged Mr Ashby and he smashed three mobile phones belonging to thevictim against the bedroom wall. Mr Ashby then approached the victim and punchedher in the right eye, with a closed fist. Due to the force of the punch, the victimstaggered backwards.[5] Mr Ashby then produced a knife and verbally threatened the victim. After ashort time, Mr Ashby put the knife away. At this point, he had thrown the victim tothe ground, causing her to land face down. Mr Ashby climbed on top of the victim toprevent her from moving. He laid over her and wrapped an arm around her neck area,causing her to choke momentarily. The victim suffered bruising to her right eye andhad ongoing pain in her throat from her jaw to her collar bone.10 July 2020 offending[6] On 10 July 2020, Mr Ashby drove onto the forecourt of the Caltex ServiceStation on Fitzherbert Avenue, Palmerston North. He proceeded to fill his vehicle with$73.49 worth of petrol. Mr Ashby told an attendant that his partner was on her way topay as he had forgotten his wallet. When the attendant was distracted, Mr Ashby droveaway without making any attempt to pay for the fuel.24 July 2020 offending[7] On 24 July 2020, Mr Ashby drove onto the forecourt of the Caltex ServiceStation on Main Street, Palmerston North. He proceeded to fill his vehicle with $83.60worth of petrol. Mr Ashby then drove away without paying for the fuel.20 August 2020 offending[8] On 20 August 2020, Mr Ashby and the victim were making their way back toPalmerston North after visiting family in Tolaga Bay. The victim was driving hervehicle and Mr Ashby was in the front passenger seat. As they approached Wairoa,the victim began talking about ending the relationship. Mr Ashby became upset andbegan speaking threateningly. While travelling through road works north of Wairoa,Mr Ashby said, "I might as well kill us both then" and began pulling on the steeringwheel with the intention of causing the vehicle to crash. The victim managed tocontrol the vehicle and prevent it from crashing.[9] Upon entering Wairoa, Mr Ashby said he wanted to kill a Mongrel Mob gangmember and asked the victim to drive down Marine Parade. Mr Ashby locatedsomeone he believed was a Mongrel Mob gang member and directed the victim to pullover. The victim became upset and began crying, fearing Mr Ashby was about to killsomeone. Mr Ashby got into the driver seat and drove the victim back up MarineParade. He then produced a large butcher's knife and began stabbing the frontdashboard of the vehicle. Fearing for her safety, the victim asked him to pull into aservice station so she could go to the toilet. From there, she contacted police.[10] Police arrived and spoke to Mr Ashby. When asked to produce his licence,he said that it was with his partner. When asked for his details, he provided his nameas "Allen Ashby" and said that he lived at an address in Nūhaka. Police were unableto confirm these details, and Mr Ashby immediately drove away from the servicestation at speed. He headed south then turned around and drove back, where he wasspotted by police. Mr Ashby's vehicle was located a short time later in a driveway, inan attempt to hide from police. Police attempted to block the vehicle in the driveway.Mr Ashby immediately drove onto the footpath at speed to avoid the police vehicle,and into the incorrect lane. Police initiated pursuit. Mr Ashby drove directly towardsan ambulance, narrowly avoiding a collision, before driving back into the correct lane.He turned back onto the service station forecourt, and drove in a circle through thepumps. He drove off at speed, and then into the incorrect lane heading towardsoncoming traffic. At a roundabout, Mr Ashby again entered into the incorrect lane.At the time there was a moderate volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, with manypedestrians walking on footpaths in close proximity. Due to the increasing risk topublic safety, police abandoned the pursuit.[11] Mr Ashby then turned and drove south, back to the service station in an attemptto uplift the victim. Police were still present when he arrived. Mr Ashby drove, atspeed, directly towards the stationary police vehicles on the forecourt, before drivingaround them and out. Police made a second attempt to stop the vehicle, but Mr Ashbyfailed to stop. Police re-engaged in the pursuit. Mr Ashby again drove into theincorrect lane, and at speed. The pursuit was again abandoned.[12] A police vehicle then observed Mr Ashby's vehicle travelling at speed,showing no intention of slowing for an intersection. The police vehicle slowed, toavoid a collision, and Mr Ashby attempted to turn. Due to his speed, he had to crossthe centreline into the path of oncoming traffic. He proceeded to travel along StateHighway 2 at excessive speed, towards Gisborne. Police did not attempt to stop hisvehicle due to his manner of driving, and sight of the vehicle was lost. Throughoutthe pursuit, Mr Ashby reached speeds in excess of 110km/h in a predominantly 50km/hspeed zone.[13] Mr Ashby's vehicle was next observed by police, approximately 10 minuteslater, travelling in a line of traffic through Mōrere. Due to the circumstances, policedid not attempt to stop the vehicle. As Mr Ashby's vehicle approached Manutuke,some 84 kilometres from Wairoa, it was observed by police travelling at excessivespeed. A police vehicle travelling south through Manutuke observed Mr Ashby'svehicle in the distance. Mr Ashby crossed the centreline, onto the wrong side of theroad, and drove directly towards the police vehicle at speeds in excess of 150km/h.The police officer had to take emergency evasive action to avoid a collision.[14] Mr Ashby continued travelling north and again crossed the centreline into thepath of a south-bound truck and trailer unit. He pulled back into the correct laneseconds before impacting head-on with the truck. Mr Ashby then executed adangerous U-turn in the middle of the road and began travelling south, at speed, onthe wrong side of the road. He continued south at speed and once again crossed thecentreline, accelerating into the path of the same police vehicle. The driver had toswerve into a nearby driveway to avoid a head-on crash with Mr Ashby's vehicle bythe narrowest of margins. At that point, police initiated another pursuit with Mr Ashby.The manner of his driving became more reckless and, once again, the pursuit wasabandoned.[15] Mr Ashby evaded police and sight of his vehicle was lost. It was observedagain a short time later, re-joining State Highway 2 and travelling north towardsGisborne. At this point, a police dog handler in a vehicle observed Mr Ashby's vehicletravelling towards him. Mr Ashby then crossed the centreline, deliberately into thepath of the dog handler's vehicle and another police vehicle travelling behind, whichwere both forced to pull onto the grass verge to get out of Mr Ashby's path. Mr Ashbythen changed his direction of travel, sped up, and continued to drive directly towardsthe dog handler's vehicle. At this point, the dog handler was forced to take evasiveaction by driving into a nearby vehicle entrance, seconds before he would have beenhit head-on by Mr Ashby.[16] Mr Ashby continued travelling at excessive speed towards Gisborne, beforecoming to a stop on the side of the State Highway a short distance away. The durationof the pursuit covered a distance of approximately 85 kilometres, reaching speeds inexcess of 150km/h. Mr Ashby ran from the vehicle and hid in nearby vegetation beforebeing located by police. A subsequent search of Mr Ashby's vehicle located abutcher's knife in the passenger's footwell.District Court decision[17] The Judge referred to the cultural report in two parts of his sentencing. BeforeI summarise his observations on that report, I set out his conclusions on the offending.[18] In relation to the 29 March 2020 offending and the charges of assault on afamily member and intentional (wilful) damage, the Judge highlighted that there hadbeen four previous incidents of family violence between Mr Ashby and the victim.In relation to the 5 May 2020 offending, the Judge emphasised that the victim was thesame person, and that Mr Ashby's offending demonstrates a tendency to try to controlthe victim, particularly when he assaulted her by damaging her means ofcommunication.[19] In relation to the 20 August 2020 charges, the Judge noted that the police hadto abandon their pursuit due to Mr Ashby's dangerous driving, in proximity to othermotorists and pedestrians. The Judge said there were other examples of extremebehaviour by Mr Ashby putting other people at risk, for example when he deliberatelylined up police vehicles, forcing their drivers onto the grass verge to get out of theway.[20] The Judge adopted starting points of 12 months' imprisonment for each of the29 March and 5 May 2020 assault offending, which he considered to be serious,resulting in a sentence of two years' imprisonment for those charges. The Judge notedthe 20 August matters involved intimidatory behaviour towards the victim of a lessserious kind, but also possession of an offensive weapon and terrible driving over asubstantial distance. The Judge set the starting point for those matters at 18 months'imprisonment, taking the sentence to three and a half years' imprisonment. For thethefts and the driving while disqualified charges, the Judge increased the starting pointto four years' imprisonment.[21] The Judge then noted that he needed to assess the totality of the offending,noting that he was dealing with groups of very serious offences, but that the offenceswere disconnected in time and circumstance. The Judge concluded that an appropriatestarting point for all the offending was three and a half years' imprisonment.[22] The Judge did not increase that starting point because of Mr Ashby's criminalhistory even though he had earlier noted Mr Ashby's many previous convictions fortraffic offending and some sentence breaches, as well as his previous convictions forshoplifting in 2015, common assault in 2015, burglary in 2012, and assault with intentto injure in 2010.[23] Turning to mitigation, the Judge allowed a reduction to two years' and ninemonths' imprisonment, which is just over 20 per cent, on account of a guilty plea.[24] In relation to the cultural report, the Judge referred to this as one of thesignificant documents he had had access to, and said the report was helpful as it wentthrough Mr Ashby's background and personal circumstances and included a lot ofcommentary about Mr Ashby's view of his situation. The Judge said that importantfactors coming out of the report were that anger problems in Mr Ashby's life go backa long way and this was reported by family members.[25] The Judge said he had read about [withheld] that Mr Ashby had made attemptsat attending anger management courses, so the Judge hoped to some extent that MrAshby had an insight into what had gone wrong in life. The Judge noted that he wastold the last anger management course was in Gisborne four years ago. The Judgenoted the report writer said Mr Ashby was diagnosed with a brain aneurysm a coupleof years ago while he was living in Marton. The report writer said this was part of thereason for his offending. The Judge said he noted this but that he did not have amedical opinion confirming that.[26] The Judge noted the report writer's comment that one of the motivatorsMr Ashby reported was the risk or threat of losing access to his children. The Judgesaid he hoped that weighs on Mr Ashby's mind because to be a good father he couldnot behave in this way, particularly towards the women in his life.[27] Returning to the cultural report in relation to mitigation, the Judge said:[19] That report helps explain your personal background and that maywell help explain the offending. What is important is long-standing issues withviolence. I am pleased to see that you have attempted anger managementcourses in the past but, of course, you are back in trouble again for significantviolence against your partner. The report writer also emphasises a claim ofremorse.[20] I am unable to discount the sentence any further because of factors inthe cultural report. While the report is helpful and possibly identifies reasonsbehind the offending, other purposes and principles of sentencing remainimportant here. I must denounce your offending. I must hold you accountableand protection of the community is critical here. You must take personalresponsibility for your offending. To be blunt Mr Ashby the offending againstyour former partner was sustained, violent, overbearing, controlling andbullying. The need to denounce that behaviour and to hold you accountableare in my judgement leading drivers of sentence.[28] The Judge thanked Mr Ashby for the letters he had written but noted thepre-sentence report writer's comment that Mr Ashby minimised his offending.The Judge did not find Mr Ashby's apologies compelling.[29] Finally, the Judge determined the sentence charge by charge, involving acombination of concurrent and cumulative sentences resulting in the overall sentenceof two years and nine months' imprisonment.12Approach on appeal[30] To succeed on an appeal against sentence, the appellant must satisfy the appealCourt that there has been an error in the imposition of the sentence and that a differentsentence should be imposed.13 The Court will not, ordinarily, intervene when thesentence is within the range that can be properly justified by accepted sentencingprinciples. The Court will only intervene and substitute its own view if the sentenceis manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.14 The appeal Court's focus is on the12 Together with the concurrent sentences on other charges, the Judge's cumulative sentences were:10 months' imprisonment on the charge of assault on a family member on 29 March 2020 (CRN20054001413); 10 months' imprisonment on the charge of assault on a family member on 5 May2020 (CRN 20016002329); and 13 months' imprisonment on the charge of possession of anoffensive weapon on 20 August 2020 (CRN 20016002351).13 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 250(2).14 Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482 at [36].final sentence imposed rather than its component parts or how the ultimate sentencewas reached.15Discussion[31] It is common ground, and I agree, that the Judge's starting points, totalityassessment, adjusted starting point of three and a half years' imprisonment andreduction of 20 per cent for Mr Ashby's guilty plea were all within range. The issueon appeal is whether the Judge erred in failing to provide a discount for the personalmitigating factors referred to in the s 27 cultural report, leading to a manifestlyexcessive end sentence.[32] [Withheld.][33] Mr Parsons submitted there was a strong causal connection betweenMr Ashby's offending and his anger issues[withheld]. Mr Parsons submitted thismakes s 27(1)(b) of the Sentencing Act 2002 (the Act) starkly relevant to the sentenceoutcome.[34] Mr Parsons submitted the relevant causal connection was identified in theJudge's sentencing notes, but not evaluated or applied. He relied on Solicitor Generalv Heta, where Whata J said:16The extent to which this s 27 information engages the purposes and principlesof the Act is then an evaluative matter and applied, where relevant, inaccordance with the sentencing framework.[35] Mr Parsons submitted that the Judge's failure to evaluate the causal connectionwas in error. Had the connection been evaluated, a different sentence would have beenimposed. He submitted this engages the principles in ss 8(h) and (i) and one of thekey purposes of sentencing in s 7(1)(h) of the Act, being:(a) the offender's particular circumstances making the sentencedisproportionately severe: s 8(h);15 Ripia v R [2011] NZCA 101 at [15].16 Solicitor-General v Heta [2018] NZHC 2453, [2019] 2 NZLR 241 at [38]. See also HM v R [2019]NZHC 121 at [30].(b) the offender's background when imposing a rehabilitative sentence:s 8(i);(c) the purpose of assisting in the offender's rehabilitation andreintegration: s 7(1)(h).[36] Mr Parsons noted that if a 30 per cent discount had been applied for theinformation in the s 27 report and addendum, a sentence of home detention wouldhave been within range.[37] Ms Pairman, for the respondent, submitted that the Judge was entitled not toapply a discount for personal factors and no error was made. Accepting that the Judgeacknowledged the cultural report may provide reasons for the offending, she submittedthe Judge considered there were countervailing purposes and principles which wereengaged by the offending, which meant he felt he could not give a discount.She submitted that, in any event, when stepping back and looking at the totality of theoffending, a 30 per cent discount would not be warranted and the end sentence is notmanifestly excessive.[38] I approach the issue in two stages. First, the nexus between Mr Ashby'sbackground and the offending, and secondly, consideration of the relevant sentencingpurposes and principles. Difficulties arise at both stages where abuse (or anothermitigating background factor) is self-reported only in the sentencing process.As Mr Parsons noted, the cultural report was only available to the parties and the Judgethe day before sentencing.[39] The first stage calls for factual assessment as to the extent and effect of theabuse. As the Court of Appeal said in Zhang v R (in relation to addiction), a discountshould be based on persuasive evidence, as opposed to mere self-reporting.17 The onusof proof (to the civil standard) lies on the offender to establish the extent and effect ofabuse.17 Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507, [2019] 3 NZLR 648 at [148].[40] The second stage, weighing sentencing purposes and principles, may wellinvolve consideration of rehabilitation prospects and a pathway to rehabilitationhaving regard to the effect of abuse (or other mitigating background factor). In caseswhere disclosure has only just occurred, such a pathway may not be well formed.A cultural report is inherently looking at background factors. It is not a forward-looking report. Nor is it a psychological report. Here, there was no real time to address[withheld] and consider a course of action. I am not saying this sentencing shouldhave been adjourned, but note that in Zhang the Court of Appeal encouraged counseland sentencing judges to make greater use of s 25 of the Act to adjourn sentencingwhere possible in cases where independent evidence suggests the offending wascaused by the factor(s) which a proposed programme or course of action is designedto target.18 Again, self-reporting as to the causes of the offending will generally notbe sufficient.Mr Ashby's background[41] I have already referred to the addendum to the cultural report in the context ofMr Parsons' submissions. More generally, the cultural report explains that Mr Ashbyis of Māori descent – Ngāti Kahungunu and Ngāpuhi – and has a very tight knitwhānau. He has had anger issues since childhood, which his mother believes werecaused by his father being absent for work. [Withheld.] This caused significantdifficulty and disruption to him and his education. He did not attend high school butwas sent to Akina in Hastings where difficult students were sent to undertake courses.[42] I accept that Mr Ashby's childhood was one involving significant deprivation.As the Judge said, Mr Ashby's personal background "may well help explain theoffending". The Judge also acknowledged the cultural report "possibly identifiesreasons behind the offending". [Withheld.][43] In any event, I consider that Mr Ashby's significant childhood deprivation[withheld] does have a demonstrable nexus with his offending given his anger issues.As Mr Parsons submitted, the offending exhibits fight or flight behaviour. [Withheld.]The respondent acknowledged a stronger nexus in relation to Mr Ashby's violent18 At [179]-[180].offending and I consider there was also a nexus with his related driving offending.I do not see a nexus in relation to his dishonesty offending but that offending wasrelatively minor.Balancing sentencing purposes and principles[44] As indicated, while acknowledging Mr Ashby's personal background, theJudge declined to give Mr Ashby a discount given other purposes and principles ofsentencing – in particular, the need to denounce his offending, hold him accountableand protect the community.[45] It is common ground that the factors raised by s 27 reports are to be assessedagainst the purposes and principles of the Act.19 The Judge was right to consider them.The issue is the balancing of those purposes and principles in this case.[46] As the Court of Appeal recently observed in Poi v R, deprivation may reducean offender's moral culpability for the offending, impacting upon the application ofseveral purposes and principles of sentencing, such as holding the offenderaccountable, denunciation, general and specific deterrence, community protection andthe need for rehabilitation.20[47] On the other hand, the Court of Appeal has also said that sentencing for someoffences may be dominated by considerations such as denunciation, victim impact andcommunity protection, reducing and perhaps eliminating any discount for culpabilityon social grounds.21[48] Almost everything turns on the facts of the particular case. [Withheld] therewas a demonstrable nexus between Mr Ashby's upbringing and his offending. Thatnexus somewhat reduces Mr Ashby's moral culpability.[49] I also acknowledge the importance of denunciation of Mr Ashby's violence anddangerous driving and the need to hold him accountable for that.19 Solicitor-General v Heta [2018] NZHC 2453, [2019] 2 NZLR 241 at [38] and [39].20 Poi v R [2020] NZCA 312 at [24]-[27].21 Arona v R [2018] NZCA 427 at [61], citing Heta at [57].[50] In relation to rehabilitation, I acknowledge that Mr Ashby has undertakenanger management courses, most recently four years ago, which have been ineffectiveat least in relation to this offending. But that might suggest these courses have notuncovered the underlying cause of his anger. [Withheld.] The report alsoacknowledged Mr Ashby's gang life and said that since being in jail he has decided togive it up due to the threat of losing his partner and children and because the gang wasnot there for him. His partner attended the hearing of the appeal and provided anupdated victim impact statement indicating she would be supportive of Mr Ashbyif/when he is released from prison. She said she wonders if he has learned the abilityto regulate his emotions and self-control better when conflict situations arise. She hasno concerns for her own safety or that of her children. I acknowledge her importantupdated contribution but exercise care with it.[51] Taking all these matters into account in the context of the moderately seriousoffending in this case, I consider that the other sentencing purposes rightly referred toby the Judge reduced but did not eliminate the need for a discount for personalmitigating circumstances. Mr Ashby's somewhat reduced moral culpability and theimportance of assisting his rehabilitation warranted a discount. However, I acceptMs Pairman's submission that a 30 per cent discount is not warranted, [withheld].[52] In all the circumstances, I consider a discount of 10 to 15 per cent would havebeen appropriate, in addition to the 20 per cent guilty plea discount, such that the endsentence is manifestly excessive. Adopting the two-stage approach in Moses v R,22I consider a total discount of 35 per cent is appropriate, resulting in an overall endsentence of two years and three months' imprisonment.Result[53] The appeal against sentence is allowed.[54] I set aside the cumulative sentences, and substitute them with new sentences,cumulative in the same respects, as follows:22 Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296.(a) on the charge of assault on a family member on 29 March 2020,23the sentence of 10 months' imprisonment is set aside. A sentence ofeight months' imprisonment is substituted;(b) on the charge of assault on a family member on 5 May 2020,24the sentence of 10 months' imprisonment is set aside. A sentence ofeight months' imprisonment is substituted;(c) on the charge of possession of an offensive weapon on 20 August2020,25 the sentence of 13 months' imprisonment is set aside.A sentence of 11 months' imprisonment is substituted.[55] All other sentences are unchanged.26________________________________Gault J23 CRN 20054001413.24 CRN 20016002329.25 CRN 20016002351.26 I note the warrant of commitment for the sentence of imprisonment relating to the reckless drivingcharge CRN 20016002358, for a period of two years' imprisonment, does not appear to reflect theJudge's sentencing notes, which refer to a sentence of 2 months' imprisonment for the recklessdriving charges relating to the East Coast incident. However, as this is a concurrent sentence,it does not affect the result of this appeal.