Begg v Police - [2016] NZHC 2639

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

CRI-2016-025-000724 [2016] NZHC 2639

BETWEEN
JASON RICHARD BEGG

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 17 October 2016

Appearances:

R R Smith for the Appellant
R Donnelly for the Respondent

Judgment:

2 November 2016

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

[1] On 7 April 2015, Mr Begg was 24. He had been suspended from driving for three months on 13 January 2016 because of accumulated demerit points. On the night of 7 April 2015, he drove a vehicle with two young passengers throughout Invercargill and the central business district at times in excess of 160 kilometres per hour. This driving began about 11.00 p.m.

[2] At about half an hour past midnight on Friday morning 8 April 2015, Mr Begg crashed the vehicle he was driving into the rear of a sedan travelling in the same direction at or below the speed limit there of 80 kilometres per hour. There were eight occupants in that car. The impact caused that vehicle’s fuel tank to explode into flames. All eight occupants received injuries. One of the victims had his pelvis snapped in half and cracked in one place, spent eight days in hospital and
was going to be off work for three months.

BEGG v POLICE [2016] NZHC 2639 [2 November 2016]

[3] At the time of this driving, Mr Begg’s alcohol level was 630 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath, compared to the legal limit of 250 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. Mr Begg had a prior conviction for drink driving from 2011.

[4] As a result of all that occurred, Mr Begg faced a number of charges to which he pleaded guilty. He received an effective sentence for all offending of three years’ imprisonment.1 He was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for two years. Certain other orders were made as to his having to obtain a zero alcohol licence if he was to obtain a licence in the future, and for emotional harm reparation to be paid to each of the victims of his driving.

[5] Mr Begg appealed against the sentences imposed, arguing through counsel the sentence of imprisonment was manifestly excessive.

The District Court Judge’s sentencing

[6] Mr Begg faced nine charges that on 8 April 2015 he drove a motor vehicle on the road where the crash ultimately causing injury occurred, when the proportion of alcohol in his breath exceeded 400 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath in that it was 630 micrograms.2 A separate charge was brought in respect of the injuries caused to each person in the vehicle he collided with. Passengers in his car were also injured. On each of those charges he was liable to a maximum penalty of imprisonment for five years or a fine not exceeding $20,000. He also faced nine charges of operating a motor vehicle recklessly in Invercargill and causing injury.3
Again, there were nine such charges because of the injury done to people…

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 Begg v Police

Details

AGLC: Begg v Police [2016] NZHC 2639
Case: [2016] NZHC 2639
Decision Date: 2 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Begg v Police involved an appeal by the appellant, Jason Richard Begg, against his sentence for multiple charges of dangerous driving, driving with excess alcohol, and driving while disqualified. The appeal was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Invercargill Registry. The appellant had driven recklessly at excessive speeds, resulting in a collision with a vehicle travelling at or below the speed limit, causing serious injuries to eight people. The District Court Judge had imposed a sentence of three years’ imprisonment, which the appellant considered manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the starting point for the lead charges was too high and that the 12-month uplift for the reckless driving charges was inappropriate. The Crown, on the other hand, submitted that the sentence was within range and not manifestly excessive. The High Court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentence was within the range reasonably available to the sentencing Judge.

The final orders of the Court were as follows: the appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the District Court Judge was upheld. The appellant was to serve three years’ imprisonment for his offending, and certain other orders made by the District Court were confirmed.

Orders