IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY
CRI-2014-488-000044 [2014] NZHC 3076
BETWEEN TROY DANIEL ELLIS
Appellant
AND
NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
Hearing: 3 December 2014 Appearances:
No appearance by Appellant
M A Jarman-Taylor for the RespondentJudgment:
3 December 2014
ORAL JUDGMENT OF VENNING J
Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Whangarei
Copy To: Appellant
ELLIS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 3076 [3 December 2014]
[1] Following a defended hearing in the District Court at Whangarei Troy Ellis was convicted on one charge of driving a motor vehicle while impaired and with blood containing evidence of the use of cannabis. Judge D J McDonald subsequently fined him $250, Court costs $130, analyst’s fees $752.63 and disqualified him from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for six months from
23 October 2014.
[2] Mr Ellis represented himself before the District Court and filed an appeal on his own behalf. The appeal was stated to be against sentence.
[3] No submissions have been filed on behalf of Mr Ellis in support of the appeal and when the matter was called this afternoon there was no appearance by or on behalf of Mr Ellis.
[4] The notice of the date of the hearing of this appeal was sent to Mr Ellis at the address he recorded as his address on the notice of general appeal.
[5] As there is no appearance in support of the appeal it could be dismissed for want of prosecution. However, in preparation for the appeal I reviewed the appeal file and I am satisfied that on its merits there is no substance to the appeal against sentence and indeed, for that matter, of any prospect of an appeal against conviction succeeding.
[6] The Judge in a carefully considered reserved decision correctly identified the elements of the offending, rehearsed and considered the evidence relating to those elements, and found each of the elements proved beyond reasonable doubt. In those circumstances a conviction was inevitable.
[7] The sentence imposed, bearing in mind the maximum penalty available for offending of this nature, was towards the lower end of the scale and the period of disqualification is the minimum period prescribed by law.
[8] In the circumstances the appeal is dismissed on its merits.
Venning J
- AGLC
- Ellis v Police [2014] NZHC 3076
- Case
- [2014] NZHC 3076
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was excessive or otherwise inappropriate. Given that Ellis did not appear or file submissions in support of the appeal, the court needed to determine if there was any merit to the appeal on its own review of the appeal file. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to Ellis’s lack of appearance or if it could be dismissed on its merits.
The court reviewed the appeal file and found no substance to the appeal against the sentence. The Judge in the District Court had correctly identified the elements of the offending, considered the evidence, and found each element proved beyond reasonable doubt, leading to an inevitable conviction. The sentence imposed was towards the lower end of the scale and the period of disqualification was the minimum period prescribed by law. Therefore, the High Court found no basis to support the appeal and dismissed it on its merits.
The final order of the High Court was that the appeal was dismissed on its merits, with no orders made in relation to costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.