Hati v R - [2017] NZHC 687

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2016-488-59 [2017] NZHC 687

BETWEEN
DANYON HAILE HATI

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: 29 March 2017

Appearances:

C S Cull for the Appellant
R B Annandale for the Respondent

Judgment:

10 April 2017

JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 April 2017 at 3:45 p.m. pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 1985.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
……………………………………

Solicitors:
Ms C S Cull, Barrister, Kerikeri
Mr R B Annandale, Marsden Woods Inskip & Smith, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Whangarei

HATI v R [2017] NZHC 687 [10 April 2017]

[1] The appellant, Danyon Hati, appeals against a sentence of imprisonment for

2 years 2 months for offences of dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing injury. This sentence was imposed in the District Court at Kaikohe by Judge D J McDonald.1

[2] Mr Hati contends that there was error by the Judge in the following respects:

(a) The starting point of 3 years 6 months imprisonment was too high and should have been no more than 2 years 6 months to 3 years imprisonment. It is contended that the Judge was wrong to assess Mr Hati’s culpability as being “in an intermediate to high level”.

(b)The Judge failed adequately to address a range of personal mitigating factors and that, in consequence, a reduction of 7 months was inadequate.

[3] The appellant further contends that correction of those errors would result in an end sentence of 2 years or less, after allowing for a further reduction of 25 per cent for a guilty plea, and that the appropriate sentence is one of home detention.

The facts

[4] The offences occurred in February 2016, in Moerewa. Mr Hati was driving to his home at about 2:30 am. He was on Nisbet Street, where the speed limit is 50 kilometres per hour, approaching the State Highway. Nisbet Street is controlled by a stop sign at its intersection with the State Highway. The summary of facts records that, as he approached the intersection, Mr Hati accelerated towards it, making no attempt to stop or slow down. He drove at speed through the stop sign on to the State Highway intending to enter the street opposite, Wynyard Street, as quickly as he could. He failed to see a light commercial truck approaching the intersection on the State Highway, to his left. Mr Hati drove at speed into the side of the truck.

[5] The truck was being driven by Mr Andrew Bell with two passengers, his wife, Mrs Maxine Bell, and his daughter, Ms Kadie Bell. They were driving to

1 R v Hati [2016] NZDC 24337.

Auckland for Ms Bell to return to university and for Mr and Mrs Bell to take seedlings and plants to their regular stall at the Takapuna market. Mr Bell was killed. It is believed that he would have died immediately because of the force of the impact and the extent of the…

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 Hati v R

Details

AGLC: Hati v R [2017] NZHC 687
Case: [2017] NZHC 687
Decision Date: 10 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Danyon Hati appeals against a sentence of imprisonment for 2 years 2 months for offences of dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing injury. The District Court judge assessed Mr Hati’s culpability as being “in an intermediate to high level” and imposed a starting point of 3 years 6 months imprisonment. The appellant contends that the starting point was too high and should have been no more than 2 years 6 months to 3 years imprisonment and that the Judge failed adequately to address a range of personal mitigating factors. The appellant further contends that correction of those errors would result in an end sentence of 2 years or less, after allowing for a further reduction of 25 per cent for a guilty plea, and that the appropriate sentence is one of home detention.

The High Court found that the starting point adopted by the District Court was too high and that this resulted from error. The court found that the Judge had placed weight on the Cooksley guidelines, but the gravity of Mr Hati’s offending could not be described as intermediate to high. In the court’s opinion, Mr Hati’s culpability, at least in terms of Cooksley, would be at the low end of intermediate culpability. The court found that the Judge’s allowance of 7 months for personal mitigating factors was inadequate to the point of being an error. All of the personal mitigating factors in Mr Hati’s case warranted a reduction of around 12 months. The court found that the end sentence was manifestly excessive and that home detention should have been considered. The court imposed a sentence of home detention for 3 months. The appeal was allowed, the sentence of imprisonment was quashed, and in substitution, Mr Hati was sentenced to home detention for 3 months on certain conditions.

Orders