Bassett v Police - [2014] NZHC 2188

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI-2014-454-000006 [2014] NZHC 2188

PETER JAMES BASSETT

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing: 30 July 2014

Counsel:

P S Coles for Appellant
D R Davies for Respondent

Judgment:

10 September 2014

JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J

Introduction

[1] The appellant Peter James Bassett fell asleep at the wheel on State Highway 1 near Ohau. His vehicle crossed the centre line and crashed into two oncoming cars. The driver of the second car he struck was killed. The partner of the deceased suffered severe bruising to her sternum, left forearm, hand, shoulder, abdomen, upper thighs and legs. The passenger in the first car he struck suffered severe bruising to her right rib cage, elbow, abdomen, left arm and face but her husband, the driver, was thankfully uninjured.

[2] Mr Bassett pleaded guilty in the District Court at Levin to one count of careless driving causing death, and two of careless driving causing injury. He was sentenced to 300 hours community work, 12 months disqualification and required to
pay $7,500 emotional harm reparation to the estate of the deceased. In respect of

BASSETT v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 2188 [10 September 2014]

each of the two remaining victims he was required to pay a further $1,500 emotional harm reparation.

[3] Mr Bassett appealed against the whole sentence but in argument before me, his counsel, rightly in my view, narrowed the ambit of the appeal to the 300 hours community work. The question posed is whether this aspect of the sentence was manifestly excessive.

[4] Cases of this nature are some of the most difficult to come before the Courts in terms of the legal and (necessarily) moral judgements that must be made. Often the defendant, as here, is an otherwise responsible citizen, the wrongful act will involve criminal culpability at the lower end of the available spectrum, but the harm is so often tragically catastrophic. It is the marrying of the human propensity to completely avoidable carelessness with the modern automobile that produces the tragedy that must now be confronted – an innocent life lost and equally innocent survivors and severely injured both physically and psychologically.

[5] In such circumstances the sentence imposed by the Court will often be seen by the victims as a hopelessly inadequate recognition of the damage done, while the offender will often just as genuinely believe that the sentence greatly overstates his or her culpability. These perspectives can never be reconciled except perhaps in face to face restorative justice processes. The best a sentencing court can do is be consistent.

Background facts

[6] Peter James Bassett is 23 years old. He works as a line technician for Transpower. In the period leading up to the accident, he was working on lines in the Paekakariki region and commuting to his home in Hawkes Bay in the weekends.

[7] On the afternoon of Friday 29 October 2013, Mr Bassett was driving a Toyota Hilux work truck on State Highway 1…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bassett v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] NZHC 2188
Decision Date: 10 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bassett v Police involved Peter James Bassett, who fell asleep at the wheel on State Highway 1 near Ohau, resulting in a collision that killed one person and injured three others. Bassett pleaded guilty to careless driving causing death and injury and was sentenced to 300 hours of community work, 12 months disqualification, and emotional harm reparation payments. Bassett appealed the community work component of his sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive.

The court considered the appellant's culpability, the consequences of his actions, and the sentencing range for similar offences. It found that the appellant's culpability was moderate to serious due to his repeated warnings that he was too tired to drive, ultimately resulting in him falling asleep at the wheel. The court found the appellant's culpability to be comparable to that in Roberts v Police, where the appellant consciously took an unacceptable risk by proceeding with an overtaking manoeuvre, resulting in a death and severe injuries. The court concluded that the 300 hours of community work was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

The court acknowledged the restorative justice processes entered into by the appellant with some victims and their families, but found that these processes were not sufficient to require a material reduction in sentence. The court emphasised the importance of the appellant heeding the numerous warnings he received before the accident, which ultimately contributed to his culpability.

Orders