Greacen v The King - [2024] NZHC 1482

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CRI-2024-443-000016

[2024] NZHC 1482

BETWEEN
JACOB GREACEN

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 30 May 2024

Appearances:

H Smith for the Appellant

J M Woodcock for the Crown

Judgment:

6 June 2024

JUDGMENT OF ROBINSON J

[Sentence appeal]

Solicitors/Counsel:
Ron Mansfield, Auckland (H Smith) Crown Solicitor, Wellington

GREACEN v R [2024] NZHC 1482 [6 June 2024]

Introduction

[1] On 17 April 2024 Judge GF Hikaka sentenced Mr Greacen to five years’ imprisonment1 on two charges of causing death while in charge of a motor vehicle,2 three charges of causing injury while in charge of a motor vehicle,3 and one charge of possessing methamphetamine.4

[2] Mr Greacen appeals. He says the sentence was manifestly excessive because the Judge failed to give appropriate reductions for his personal mitigating factors.

Offending

[3] The parties agree that Judge Hikaka accurately outlined the offending as follows:

[7] I will now refer to the summary of facts and that is the summary that you have accepted by way of your guilty pleas. It refers to about 1.19 am, 22 November 2022, there was a motor vehicle with five occupants eastbound on State Highway 3 in the Motunui area. It was being driven by the 22-year-old victim, Destiny Arano. At the same time, a van driven by you was westbound on the same road. You were on bail pending sentence on a charge of manufacturing methamphetamine.

[8] The summary goes on to refer to this particular road having two lanes, a painted centreline and fog lines. The road was in good condition. It was a rural area with a 100-kilometre an hour speed limit. The weather was fine, but the road was wet from earlier rain, and it was dark with no streetlights, given it was in a rural area.

[9] The five occupants of the approaching vehicle are all the victims, and that vehicle was travelling at a speed between 80 and 100 kilometres an hour. You were travelling at a speed between 107 and 131 kilometres an hour. As you approached a curve in the road, you moved into the eastbound lane into the path of the victims’ vehicle which was in that lane. Ms Arano did not initially realise your van was in her lane. By the time she did, your vehicle was on her side of the road. She tried to serve to the other side to avoid it, but it was too late.

[10] The vehicles collided close to the fog line in the eastbound lane. It was a head-on type collision with each vehicle impacted on the left side. The front

1      R v Greacen [2024] NZDC 8541 [Sentencing decision].
2      Land Transport Act 1998, s 61(2)(b) and 61(3AA). Maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment or $20,000 fine.
3      Land Transport Act, s 61(2)(b) and 61(3). Maximum penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment or $20,000 fine.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(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 Greacen v The King

Details

AGLC: Greacen v The King [2024] NZHC 1482
Case: [2024] NZHC 1482
Decision Date: 6 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Jacob Greacen appeals against his five-year imprisonment sentence imposed by Judge GF Hikaka for charges of causing death and injury while in charge of a motor vehicle, and possessing methamphetamine. Greacen argues that the sentence was manifestly excessive because the Judge failed to give appropriate reductions for his personal mitigating factors. The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed by the Judge was flawed and if a different sentence should be imposed. The court considered the discounts allowed by the Judge and concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the Judge's approach to sentencing was reasonable, and the sentence imposed was justified. The appeal was dismissed.

The court's decision was based on the nature and consequences of the offending, the offender's criminal history, and his personal circumstances. The court found that the discounts allowed by the Judge were within the range reasonably available in the circumstances. The court also found that the offender was entitled to wait for full disclosure and to take legal advice before deciding whether to plead guilty. However, in the circumstances, the 15 per cent discount allowed by the Judge was not so low as to be unavailable as a matter of law. The court did not consider it necessary to impose a different sentence. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the Judge was upheld.

Orders