Fines offender appeals his 'excessive' sentence

A Dunedin man jailed for 12 months for accumulating $96,000 in unpaid fines has appealed against his sentence.

In September 2005, Matthew Bruce Wright, 26, was given cumulative three-month sentences for each of four years of incurring and not paying fines, added to a 10-week sentence for not doing community work given in place of some of the fines. Wright's lawyer Jim Takas told the Court of Appeal yesterday the sentence was excessive.

Subsection B of section 90 of the Summary Proceedings Act could be interpreted in two ways, he said. It could mean a jail term of three months per infringement or that three months was a maximum, regardless of the number of infringements. Mr Takas cited other cases where there were conflicting High Court decisions on the question.

He said he could not understand why Wright's sentencing indication and actual sentence were so different.

At a sentencing indication in July 2005, Wright faced eight charges of breach of community work and $96,000 in outstanding fines. When he pleaded guilty three months later, three of these breaches had been withdrawn and his fines had not increased, Mr Takas said. At this stage however the sentence for the fines "sky-rocketed" from three to 12 months, Mr Takas said.

Wright was granted bail in December pending the outcome of the appeal, thereby completing a three-month sentence.

Mr Takas told NZPA a condition of Wright's bail was that if his appeal was unsuccessful he would present himself to police immediately.

Crown lawyer Annabel Markham said the High Court judge had correctly interpreted section 90 of the act to mean a single fine and a single conviction. Imprisonment was important in the "overall armoury" of dealing with persistent fines offenders, she said.

The decision was reserved.

- NZPA