Alexander v Police - [2015] NZHC 2730

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GREYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI 2015-418-6 [2015] NZHC 2730

BETWEEN
MATTHEW ALLAN ALEXANDER

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 5 November 2015

Counsel:

E Bradley for Appellant
S Burdes for Respondent

Judgment:

5 November 2015

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF HEATH J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Counsel:
E Bradley, Greymouth

ALEXANDER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZHC 2730 [5 November 2015]

Background

[1] Mr Alexander appeals against a sentence imposed in the District Court at

Greymouth on 6 October 2015.1

[2] Mr Alexander pleaded guilty to a charge of operating a vehicle on a road carelessly, and causing injury to a named female complainant. The driving occurred at Kirwee, in the course of travelling from the West Coast to Christchurch.

[3] The appeal is focussed on an order for emotional harm reparation that was made. The Judge ordered that reparation be paid in the sum of $5000, by instalments of $100 per fortnight. Mr Alexander was also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for a period of six months from the date of sentence.

Facts

[4] This is one of those sad cases in which a minor error of judgment has had tragic consequences.

[5] At about 8.50am on 9 May 2015, the vehicle that Mr Alexander was driving approached a gentle right hand bend on the West Coast Road, between Darfield and Kirwee. The corner has a designated recommended speed of 75 km/h, which is visible to drivers approaching it.

[6] The vehicle that Mr Alexander was driving crossed into the grass verge, over to the left hand side of the bend. He over-corrected the vehicle, crossed the centreline. The vehicle rolled down the road several times before coming to rest on the passenger’s side. The female passenger was trapped in the vehicle. She had to be freed with the aid of the “jaws-of-life” by attending fire personnel. Mr Alexander was able to free himself from the vehicle.

[7] Both were air-lifted to Christchurch Hospital. The injuries suffered by the female passenger were many, varied, and serious: scalping of the forehead, back and

1 New Zealand Police v Alexander [2015] NZDC 20985.

neck bone fractures and a badly injured left hand are but a few of the injuries suffered, but give a flavour of the injuries caused by the crash.

Victim impact statement

[8] A victim impact statement was before the District Court on sentence, which identified fully the nature of the injuries suffered. In dealing with the emotional consequences of the incident the victim referred to the period since the accident as “very stressful and challenging”. The events have affected her, by being nervous whenever a passenger in a car. She also considers that (more generally) her self- confidence has been dented severely.

Sentencing in the district Court

[9] Sentencing took place before Judge Neave. His Honour was mindful of the nature of the error that had led to the seriousness of injuries. He was careful to focus his attention on…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Alexander v Police

Details

AGLC: Alexander v Police [2015] NZHC 2730
Case: [2015] NZHC 2730
Decision Date: 5 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Alexander v Police, Matthew Allan Alexander appealed against a sentence imposed by the District Court at Greymouth, concerning a charge of careless driving that resulted in injury. The appeal focused on an emotional harm reparation order, where the District Court Judge ordered Alexander to pay $5000 in instalments of $100 per fortnight. The appeal was heard by Justice Heath on 5 November 2015. The legal issue before the court was whether the District Court erred in imposing the emotional harm reparation order without obtaining a reparation report. The court found that the District Court was not provided with adequate information regarding Alexander's financial capacity and should have obtained a reparation report before determining the amount of reparation and the payment schedule.

The court allowed the appeal and remitted the sentencing to the District Court to obtain a reparation report. Justice Heath highlighted that the better the information before a sentencing judge, the better the decision is likely to be. The court emphasised that ordering a reparation report would have allowed the District Court to make a more informed decision regarding the amount and frequency of payments. Justice Heath also noted that while the amount of $5000 for the harm caused was not out of range, all questions of sentencing would be open for the District Court Judge to consider, taking into account Alexander's ability to pay and the impact of any payments ordered on him. The court intended no criticism of Judge Neave, as the order was made in the course of a busy list, and the judge was not provided with adequate information by counsel.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence was remitted to the District Court to consider afresh what response should be made to the offending. The court directed that a reparation report be obtained before determining the appropriate emotional harm reparation order and payment schedule.

Orders