Haskell v Police

Case [2012] NZHC 118


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2011-463-97 [2012] NZHC 118

SHANE ADRIAN HASKELL

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         10 February 2012 (Heard at HAMILTON)

Counsel:         B J Foote for Appellant

L Maynard for Respondent

Judgment:      10 February 2012

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF LANG J [on appeal against sentence]

SHANE ADRIAN HASKELL V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC ROT CRI-2011-463-97 [10 February 2012]

[1]      Mr Haskell pleaded guilty in the District Court to three charges of aggravated careless driving. Two of the charges were aggravated careless driving causing injury. The remaining charge was aggravated careless driving causing death.   The aggravating feature of each of the charges was that Mr Haskell had driven his truck on the wrong side of the road and had caused the injury to third parties as a result of doing so.

[2]      On 14 December 2011, Judge McGuire sentenced Mr Haskell to nine months imprisonment.   He also disqualified Mr Haskell from driving for a period of two years and directed him to make emotional harm payments to two named parties in the total sum of $4,000.[1]     The Judge deferred the start date of the sentence of imprisonment  for  two  months  on  humanitarian  grounds  in  order  to  enable  Mr Haskell to make appropriate arrangements regarding the management of his business

whilst he served his sentence.

[1] New Zealand Police v Haskell District Court Taupo CRI-2011-069-1970, 14 December 2011.

[3]      Mr Haskell now appeals to this Court against the sentence.  He submits that the Judge erred in principle in imposing a sentence of imprisonment, rather than home detention.

Background

[4]      The background to the matter needs to be set out in order to understand the issues that the appeal raises.   The charges arose from an incident that occurred at approximately 3.30 pm on Friday 8 April 2011.  On that date Mr Haskell was driving a Kenworth logging truck along an unsealed  forestry road to the east of Hatepe. The truck and trailer were empty, and the trailer was fastened on the rear of the truck.

[5]      Mr Haskell approached a right hand bend.  As he went round the bend, he was too far over to the right hand side.  He encountered a light Mazda truck coming in the opposite direction, and a head-on collision ensued.  As a result of the collision the Mazda truck was extensively damaged.   The driver of the truck was seriously injured and the passenger in the front seat was killed. A person travelling in the rear

compartment of the truck received moderate injuries.

The Judge’s decision

[6]      The Judge set out the facts of the case in greater detail than I have done.  He took the view that truck drivers have a responsibility to drive their vehicles in a responsible and professional manner.  He considered that Mr Haskell had breached this responsibility in the most fundamental way by failing to remain on the correct side of the road.

[7]      The Judge took the view that the circumstances of the case required him…

Continue reading Haskell v Police

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Haskell v Police [2012] NZHC 118
Case
[2012] NZHC 118
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Shane Adrian Haskell pleaded guilty to three charges of aggravated careless driving in the District Court. Two of the charges involved causing injury, while the third charge involved causing death. The aggravating factor in all three charges was that Haskell had driven his truck on the wrong side of the road and caused injury or death to third parties as a result. On 14 December 2011, Judge McGuire sentenced Haskell to nine months imprisonment, disqualified him from driving for two years, and directed him to make emotional harm payments to two named parties totaling $4,000. Haskell now appeals to the High Court against the sentence, arguing that the Judge erred in principle by imposing a sentence of imprisonment rather than home detention.

The High Court found that the Judge did not expressly deal with the issue of home detention in his sentencing remarks, despite the pre-sentence report including a home detention appendix. The Judge may have considered that imprisonment was the only form of sentence that could properly address the sentencing principles and purposes identified, or that the two alternatives open to him were sentences of community detention and imprisonment. The Court found that the Judge's decision to impose a sentence of imprisonment rather than home detention was not adequately reasoned. The Court considered that the issues identified by the Judge could be met with a sentence short of imprisonment, and that a significant sentence of home detention should be imposed to reflect the gravity of the offending and the very serious consequences that had occurred.

The appeal was allowed, and Haskell was sentenced to seven months home detention instead of nine months imprisonment. Haskell is to remain at 16 Bronton Close, Taupo for the duration of his sentence, undertake 200 hours of community work, and make emotional harm payments to the daughter of the deceased passenger and the partner of the seriously injured front seat passenger, each in the sum of $5,000. Haskell is to remain on bail on existing terms until 14 February 2012.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

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.