New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Driving under the influence

Legal area

Court

27 Sept 2023

TAUFUI v THE KING [2023] NZHC 2619

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2619
Court

High Court

The 20-month starting point for the arson was within range given the multi-storey risk and greater property damage; the District Court's aggregate sentence of 30 months was manifestly excessive because it failed adequately to recognise credit for 220 days on EM bail and for remorse; after adding one month credit for EM bail and a modest remorse allowance the global discounts increased and the substituted sentence of 26 months imprisonment was appropriate.
30 Jun 2023

JOHNSTONE v POLICE [2023] NZHC 1660

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1660
Court

High Court

The offending was at least of moderate-to-high gravity (very high speeds, high intoxication including MDMA, evasion of police, and serious injuries to passengers); the direct and indirect consequences of conviction were speculative and low and not out of proportion to the gravity; therefore a discharge without conviction would not have been available under ss106-107 and no miscarriage of justice arose from any alleged judicial or counsel error; appeal dismissed.
31 Aug 2021

TRACEY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 2265

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2265
Court

High Court

The application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because no error in the sentence was identified; the sentencing judge had provided an interval between sentencing and the commencement of disqualification which afforded the opportunity to renew the licence, therefore the proposed appeal lacked merit and extension of time was not in the interests of justice.
30 Aug 2021

SADLER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZCA 413

Citation

[2021] NZCA 413
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for recall is declined because the applicant failed to satisfy the Uhrle/Horowhenua three‑part test: he did not identify any change in statute or authoritative decision, no failure by counsel to draw a plainly relevant authority to the Court's attention was demonstrated, and no 'very special reason' was shown; re‑arguing previously decided matters is insufficient to justify recall.
12 Apr 2021

GIBSON v POLICE [2021] NZHC 781

Citation

[2021] NZHC 781
Court

High Court

The 20-month disqualification was outside the established range for first-time offending of this type given comparative authorities and the offender's circumstances; the High Court substituted a 14-month disqualification on the driving-under-the-influence conviction while leaving the careless-use disqualification intact.
27 Nov 2020

KINITA v R [2020] NZHC 1008

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1008
Court

High Court

Starting point of three and a half years was within the available range and not in error; additional mitigating material not before the sentencing Judge warranted a further four month discount; Moses v R aggregation methodology was not applied to reduce sentence further; sentence of 22 months and two weeks imprisonment was set aside and replaced with 10 months home detention with specified rehabilitation and abstinence conditions and a two year driving disqualification retained.
31 Mar 2020

EDMONDS v R [2020] NZHC 662

Citation

[2020] NZHC 662
Court

High Court

The High Court held the sentencing Judge did not err in refusing home detention because the appellant's extreme intoxication and the resulting death required denunciation and deterrence; the imposed sentence of one year and nine months' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.
15 Aug 2019

MORGAN v R [2019] NZHC 2021

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2021
Court

High Court

The appeal is dismissed because the final sentence of 22 months' imprisonment was within the permissible range and not manifestly excessive; the sentencing Judge applied orthodox methodology and allowed appropriate discounts for personal factors and plea, and the appellant's erroneous report of remand time did not render the end sentence wrong in principle.
7 Jun 2019

BARDWELL v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 1292

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1292
Court

High Court

Three-year disqualification was manifestly excessive given the facts: brief episode of vehicle theft/ dangerous driving involving one victim with limited injuries, offender remorse and engagement in restorative processes, judge's finding it was an out-of-character psychotic episode, and imposition of 11 months' home detention which is a significant deprivation of liberty; two years is the appropriate and proportionate period to protect public safety and reflect seriousness.
11 Jun 2018

JONES v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZHC 1373

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1373
Court

High Court

Affidavit evidence from counsel and an observing law clerk established the appellant acquiesced and signed a waiver after receiving advice; counsel did not act contrary to instructions, the appellant's evidence would not materially have advanced his case given comprehensive cross-examination, and therefore no real risk of an unsafe verdict and no unfair trial; appeal dismissed.