Collings v The the King

Case [2022] NZCA 605

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA
 CA318/2022
 [2022] NZCA 605
BETWEEN

GARATH RICHARD COLLINGS
Appellant

AND

THE KING
Respondent
Hearing:

21 September 2022

Court:

Gilbert, Brewer and Moore JJ

Counsel:

D J Matthews and O K Jarvis for Appellant
E J Hoskin for Respondent

Judgment:

5 December 2022 at 2 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Moore J)

Introduction

  1. The appellant, Garath Collings, was found guilty of one charge of murder following trial by jury in the High Court at Christchurch.[1]  On 1 June 2022, he was sentenced by Mander J to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 11 years.[2] 

    [1]Crimes Act 1961, s 167.

    [2]R v Collings [2022] NZHC 1275 [Sentencing notes].

  2. Mr Collings now appeals his sentence.[3]  He says that a finite sentence, rather than life imprisonment, should have been imposed.  Alternatively, if life imprisonment was appropriate, the MPI should not have exceeded 10 years.

The offending

[3]Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 244(1).

  1. On 13 July 2020, Mr Collings, together with a male associate, drove his car to the end of a cul-de-sac in suburban Christchurch.  The purpose of the trip was to pick up a friend, Ms Fielding, from her address.  Also present at the address was the deceased, Mr Friend. 

  2. The Judge described the relevant facts in this way:

    The facts

    [3]       On the morning of 13 July 2020, you drove your vehicle to the end of a cul-de-sac in Parklands, here in Christchurch.  You, together with a male associate, Mr de Lambert, were there to pick up a female friend, Ms Fielding, from her address. 

    [4]       After Ms Fielding got into the back of your car, Mr Friend approached from the address and spoke with her through the window.  He then walked around the front of the vehicle to the driver’s side and commenced speaking with you through the driver’s window. 

    [5]       There was evidence the two of you did not get on and there existed a mutual animosity.  That was why arrangements had been made earlier that morning designed, at least initially, to avoid the two of you coming into contact and was illustrated by Ms Fielding’s efforts to get others to pick her up from the address.

    [6]       As it was described by Mr de Lambert, you and Mr Friend began bickering.  Voices were not raised and the exchange was relatively short.  There is some evidence that Mr Friend may have made a threatening comment relating to your family.  As I said, the exchange of words was relatively brief and, from the point of view of the other two people in the car, not particularly noteworthy, although you were observed as having become “a wee bit flustered” and annoyed.

    [7]       As Mr Friend walked in front of your car to return to the kerb, you suddenly accelerated and drove at him.  The deliberateness of this action was marked by…

Continue reading Collings v The the King

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Collings v The the King [2022] NZCA 605
Case
[2022] NZCA 605
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Collings v The King was heard by the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The defendant, Collings, was charged with the murder of Mr Friend, who was fatally injured when Collings deliberately drove his vehicle at him. The dispute centred on whether the prosecution could prove beyond reasonable doubt that Collings acted with the intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. Collings argued that the incident was not premeditated and that he did not intend to cause death or grievous bodily harm. The court had to decide whether Collings’ actions constituted murder or manslaughter.

The court considered the evidence and circumstances of the incident, including the mutual animosity between Collings and Mr Friend, the deliberate nature of the acceleration towards Mr Friend, and Collings’ continued acceleration even after Mr Friend was dragged underneath the vehicle. The court also considered the lack of any mitigating factors or evidence of remorse from Collings. The court held that the evidence showed that Collings acted with the intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, as he deliberately turned the vehicle towards Mr Friend with the obvious intent of striking him and continued to accelerate regardless of Mr Friend’s predicament.

The court found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Collings was guilty of murder. The court rejected Collings’ argument that the incident was not premeditated, finding that the evidence showed that Collings had the intent to cause harm to Mr Friend. The court also rejected Collings’ argument that he did not intend to cause death or grievous bodily harm, finding that his actions demonstrated a clear intent to do so.

The court sentenced Collings to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years. The court considered the gravity of the offence, the deliberate nature of Collings’ actions, and the lack of any mitigating factors or evidence of remorse from Collings. The court held that a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years was appropriate in the circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The Judge described the relevant facts in this way:The facts[3] On the morning of 13 July 2020, you drove your vehicle to the end of a cul-de-sac in Parklands, here in Christchurch. You, together with a male associate, Mr de Lambert, were there to pick up a female friend, Ms Fielding, from her address. [4] After Ms Fielding got into the back of your car, Mr Friend approached from the address and spoke with her through the window. He then walked around the front of the vehicle to the driver’s side and commenced speaking with you through the driver’s window. [5] There was evidence the two of you did not get on and there existed a mutual animosity. That was why arrangements had been made earlier that morning designed, at least initially, to avoid the two of you coming into contact and was illustrated by Ms Fielding’s efforts to get others to pick her up from the address.[6] As it was described by Mr de Lambert, you and Mr Friend began bickering. Voices were not raised and the exchange was relatively short. There is some evidence that Mr Friend may have made a threatening comment relating to your family. As I said, the exchange of words was relatively brief and, from the point of view of the other two people in the car, not particularly noteworthy, although you were observed as having become “a wee bit flustered” and annoyed.[7] As Mr Friend walked in front of your car to return to the kerb, you suddenly accelerated and drove at him. The deliberateness of this action was marked by the way you turned the vehicle’s wheels towards him with the obvious intent of striking him. You continued to accelerate the vehicle until it finally crashed. At no stage did you pause. You ignored the reactions of the other occupants of the vehicle and made no attempt to brake. Mr Friend was effectively taken from a point on the road onto the footpath and across the length of the street frontage of the nearby address. His attempts to remain upright and retreat were in vain. As was apparent from the video footage which captured the whole incident, because of the vehicle’s increasing speed, Mr Friend had no chance of extracting himself from the front of the car and was inevitably dragged underneath.[8] You must have been aware of Mr Friend’s predicament but you carried on regardless. Rather than stop or slow down, to the contrary, you kept on accelerating. This was clearly a conscious act on your behalf. Your obvious objective was to run him over and, as the jury must have at the very least concluded, you did so appreciating the danger to Mr Friend’s life in the way you used the vehicle against him. You only came to a stop once the car could effectively go no further after crashing into a small tree. [9] After the front of the vehicle was lifted up into the air as a result of the collision, you reversed back before driving around Mr Friend as he lay prone on the ground, and drove away without stopping or checking on his condition. He died at the scene while being treated by attending ambulance staff.[10] You drove with your passengers for a number of kilometres. However, your car was damaged and you were forced to stop in the parking area of a local park. After obtaining the assistance of a lawyer, you presented yourself to police later that day.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.