Legal Research
Cases
Brunt v The King

Brunt v The King

Case [2023] NZHC 451 9 March 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2022-485-54

[2023] NZHC 451

LUCILLA LINDA BRUNT

v

THE KING

Hearing: 2 March 2023

Appearances:

B J Dawson and J H Porter for the Appellant C T Hislop for the Respondent

Judgment:

9 March 2023

JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

(Appeal against conviction and sentence)

[1] Lucilla Brunt was charged with careless driving causing death and injury.1 Following a trial before Judge Mika she was convicted on 4 May 2022.2 She was sentenced to 200 hours’ community work and disqualified from driving for six months on 18 August 2022.3

[2] Ms Brunt appeals against the conviction. She also appeals against the failure of the Judge to discharge her without conviction and against her sentence.

1      Land Transport Act 1998, s 38; maximum penalty 3 months’ imprisonment, $4500.00 fine.
2      R v Brunt [2022] NZDC 6544.
3      R v Brunt [2022] NZDC 15783.

BRUNT v R [2023] NZHC 451 [9 March 2023]

Background

[3] On 14 November 2020, Ms Brunt was driving south on State Highway Two, Upper Hutt. Ms Brunt approached the intersection between State Highway Two and Gibbons Street, slowing and then stopping at a red light. She was in the right hand lane of the south-bound traffic. Mr David Armstrong was stopped at the same red light, one car back, in the left hand lane of the south-bound traffic. At the green light, both Ms Brunt and Mr Armstrong moved through the intersection, with Ms Brunt being positioned ahead of Mr Armstrong. Both vehicles sped up, and the two south- bound traffic lanes began to merge into a single lane. As they approached the merge, Mr Armstrong attempted to undertake Ms Brunt. Neither vehicle yielded, nor allowed the other to merge, and the two vehicles travelled parallel to each other in the single lane for 392 metres at an estimated speed of 103 km per hour.

[4] Mr Armstrong continued to attempt to undertake Ms Brunt. Ms Brunt’s vehicle then made contact with the right rear of Mr Armstrong’s vehicle, causing his vehicle to rotate clockwise and collide with oncoming north-bound vehicle travelling between 90-100 km per hour, causing serious injuries to Mark and Caron Lancaster.4 Mr Armstrong passed away at the scene. Ms Brunt was uninjured.

[5] Ms Brunt has worked for a government department for 11 years in an advisory capacity. She lives in the Wairarapa with her family. She has a 17 year old daughter of her own, a five year old daughter with her partner, and custody of her partner’s two children aged 15 and 13 years. She had no previous convictions at the time of this offence.

District Court decision

[6] The Judge framed the key issue as whether Ms Brunt maintained the standard of a reasonable and prudent driver in her response to Mr Armstrong’s driving. The Judge found there was contributory negligence on both Mr Armstrong’s and Ms Brunt’s part. He explained that a…

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 Brunt v The King

Details

AGLC: Brunt v The King [2023] NZHC 451
Case: [2023] NZHC 451
Decision Date: 9 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Brunt v The King concerns the conviction and sentence of Lucilla Brunt for careless driving causing death and injury, following a high-speed collision with another vehicle. The appellant argues that the District Court erred in finding her guilty, in not discharging her without conviction, and in sentencing her to 200 hours of community work and a six-month driving disqualification. The High Court considered the appeal on its merits, reviewing the evidence and arguments presented.

Firstly, the Court addressed the appeal against conviction, noting that Ms Brunt's submissions centred around the objective of the Road Rules and the "agony of the moment" doctrine. The Court found that the District Court appropriately assessed the evidence and did not err in its finding of guilt. The Court held that the duty to drive with care is overriding, and a driver must still exercise care and take reasonable steps to avoid a collision, even when responding to the inappropriate driving of others. The Court found that the Judge's conclusion was an appropriate one, considering the evidence of independent witnesses, CCTV footage, and the accident report.

Secondly, the Court considered the appeal against the decision not to discharge Ms Brunt without conviction. The Court found that the District Court correctly applied the three-step process outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002 and did not err in its decision. The Court held that the implications of the conviction did not outweigh the seriousness of the offending such that a conviction was out of all proportion.

Lastly, the Court examined the appeal against sentence. The Court found that the District Court had not expressly assessed the implications of this accident arising primarily as a consequence of the unsafe driving of another, which needed to be taken into account when assessing the period of community service. The Court concluded that the sentence of 200 hours of community work was manifestly excessive, and reduced the sentence to 120 hours.

In summary, the High Court dismissed the appeal against conviction and the appeal against the decision not to discharge the appellant, but allowed the appeal against sentence, reducing the community work sentence to 120 hours.

Orders