FALANIKO v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 2222
The appeal was allowed and the confiscation order set aside because Sentencing Act 2002 s 129(4)(b) prohibits making a confiscation order where an alcohol interlock order is made or available, rendering the confiscation impermissible in the circumstances.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] NZHC 2222
- Parties
- Appellant: Venasio Falaniko; Respondent: New Zealand Police
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 5 September 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal Against Vehicle Confiscation / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; confiscation order set aside.
- Legal Topics
- Vehicle Confiscation, Alcohol Interlock, Statutory Interpretation, Forfeiture Orders
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Venasio Falaniko
Appellant
New Zealand Police
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Vehicle Confiscation / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a court may order confiscation of a vehicle where an alcohol interlock order is available under Sentencing Act 2002 s 129(4)(b)
- 2 Whether the confiscation order should be set aside on that statutory basis
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was allowed and the confiscation order set aside because Sentencing Act 2002 s 129(4)(b) prohibits making a confiscation order where an alcohol interlock order is made or available, rendering the confiscation impermissible in the circumstances.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; confiscation order set aside.
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- Confiscation order set aside; vehicle not to be confiscated.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
FALANIKO v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 2222 [5 September 2019]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDCHRISTCHURCH REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAŌTAUTAHI ROHECRI-2019-409-000072[2019] NZHC 2222BETWEEN VENASIO FALANIKOAppellantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentHearing: 5 September 2019Appearances: Appellant in personS Bicknell for RespondentJudgment: 5 September 2019RESULTS JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J[1] Mr Falaniko, I am going to tell you the outcome now and I will write somereasons and you will get it in writing later on.[2] I am going to allow your appeal. That means that you win.[3] You are not going to have your car confiscated. I am going to set that orderaside. That is because there is a provision here that says if you are going to get analcohol interlock, or if the Judge made an order that you can get an alcohol interlock,then the Court cannot make an order to confiscate.1Solicitors:Raymond Donnelly & Co., Christchurch1 Sentencing Act 2002, s 129(4)(b).