3 Apr 2023
The appeal is dismissed because the District Court judge did not err in declining to exercise the s 94 discretion: prior disqualifications had demonstrable effect, a further period of disqualification was likely to deter and protect the public, s 94 is reserved for clear cases, and therefore it was not inappropriate to order disqualification and the s 94 jurisdiction did not arise.
23 Nov 2022
Having considered s 94 afresh the High Court concluded there were no special circumstances to make mandatory disqualification inappropriate: the offender posed a real risk (very high breath reading and speeding), prior disqualifications had been effective but were neutral, a limited licence was available to mitigate employment hardship, and 100 hours community work combined with the disqualification was not manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed.
4 Aug 2021
The High Court concluded the District Court judge gave disproportionate weight to historic driving offences; on fresh consideration of the s 94(1)(b) factors the appellant's reduced offending over the past decade, employment and rehabilitative steps outweighed public safety concerns such that disqualification was inappropriate; accordingly the one-year disqualification was quashed and substituted with an additional 70 hours of community work (total 190 hours including impaired drivers' course).
7 Jul 2021
Leave for the second appeal was granted because the 80 hour community work sentence was wrong in principle and manifestly excessive: the sentencing courts failed to apply the Sentencing Act's purposes, hierarchy and requirement to regard a fine as appropriate (ss7,8,10A,13), and for a second low-to-moderate seriousness drink-driving offence without aggravating features a fine plus appropriate disqualification is the normal outcome; accordingly the community work was quashed and replaced with a fine, while the seven month disqualification was within range and upheld.
2 Jul 2021
The High Court held the direct and indirect consequences of conviction were not out of all proportion to the gravity of the dangerous driving offence; the District Court was right to refuse discharge under s106/s107 and was not required to substitute a community-based sentence under s94; appeal dismissed.
2 Jun 2021
The Judge did not err in declining to grant a s 94 substitution because he properly considered the statutory factors, found the appellant was not a recidivist disqualified driver, that the prior disqualification had been effective, that insufficient evidence of hardship or rehabilitative prospects justified departure from the statutory disqualification, and that public interest required upholding the mandatory disqualification; appellate interference was not warranted.
3 May 2021
Having considered the s 94(1) factors and admitted fresh evidence, the Court concluded disqualification was inappropriate given the offender's employment and family circumstances, the neutral effect of prior disqualification, and that sentencing purposes could be met by a community-based sentence; accordingly the one-year disqualification was quashed and substituted with an additional 60 hours community work under s 94(3).
16 Mar 2021
s 94(4)(aa) of the Land Transport Act 1998 precludes substitution of a community-based sentence where an alcohol interlock sentence has been ordered and is extant; this interpretation accords with the plain wording and legislative purpose of securing compliance with the interlock regime; accordingly s 94 did not apply and the District Court was entitled to refuse substitution, and the District Court correctly refused a discharge under s 106 because the consequences of conviction were not out of all proportion to the moderate gravity of the offending.
3 Mar 2021
The sentencing Judge had not considered all mandatory s94 factors; on rehearing the High Court balanced the offender's remorse, employment prospects and support against his extensive prior convictions and concluded the public interest and rehabilitative prospects justified substituting the two-year disqualification with 50 hours community work while retaining six months community detention with a modified curfew to facilitate employment.
9 Dec 2020
Having considered the aggravating features (premeditation, persistence, offending on bail) and mitigating features (early plea, remorse, treatment for depression with some causal nexus), the High Court held the District Court did not err in finding the consequences of conviction were not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending and that the reduced starting point and conversion to a community-based sentence produced a sentence that was not manifestly excessive; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.