Hazel v Police - [2020] NZHC 609

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2020-441-4

[2020] NZHC 609

BETWEEN
LUCAS JAMES HAZEL

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 13 March 2020

Appearances:

A McPherson for Appellant M Mitchell for Respondent

Judgment:

13 March 2020

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

Introduction1

[1] This is a sentence appeal against a sentence of 29 months’ imprisonment and two years’ driving disqualification. That sentence was imposed in relation to three charges. The appeal is advanced on the basis that the Judge failed to take into account the totality principle and therefore the sentence was manifestly excessive. In addition, the appellant contends there was also an error of principle in failing to recognise a guilty plea discount in relation to some of the charges.

1 This decision was delivered orally on 13 March 2020. The written form has been edited and footnoted before distribution.

HAZEL v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 609 [13 March 2020]

Factual Background

[2] The appellant, Mr Hazel, was sentenced on a charge of reckless driving causing injury (to which he had entered a guilty plea),2 two charges of assault in a domestic relationship (to which he had entered guilty pleas before trial),3 and a charge4 of theft of personal property valued at $1,000.5 for which he been convicted following a defended hearing.6

[3] The reckless driving causing injury charge arose from events on a Saturday morning. At about 1.15am the appellant was driving a car with two passengers. The police signalled for him to stop and activated their police vehicle lights. The appellant drove off and accelerated to speeds in excess of 150 kilometres an hour in an area with a speed limit of 50 kilometres an hour. Having driven along the wrong side of the road the car became airborne and when it landed the appellant lost control. The car skidded through a fence and crashed into a house damaging a caravan. One passenger in Mr Hazel’s car sustained a serious laceration to her back which revealed bone. The other passenger sustained a forehead injury requiring surgery. The damage to the property totalled in excess of $5,000.7 Mr Hazel fled the scene and was not found for a number of weeks.

[4] The second lot of charges relating to domestic assaults concern two incidents. On 24 June 2019 in the vicinity of the Hawkes Bay Hospital, Mr Hazel and his partner, the victim, began arguing. She ran away. Mr Hazel chased her into the hospital and stopped her from escaping. He grabbed her around the head, dragged her out and lifted her off the ground pushing her down the stairs. The victim tried to get around Mr Hazel but was blocked from doing so.8

2      Land Transport Act 1998, s 36(1)(a): maximum penalty of 5 year’s imprisonment or a fine of
$20,000.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 194A: maximum penalty of 2 years’ imprisonment.
4      This separate conviction was after a trial also by Judge Adeane.…

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 Hazel v Police

Details

AGLC: Hazel v Police [2020] NZHC 609
Case: [2020] NZHC 609
Decision Date: 13 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lucas James Hazel appealed against his sentence of 29 months' imprisonment and two years' driving disqualification, imposed for reckless driving causing injury, two counts of domestic violence assault, and theft of personal property valued at $1,000. The appeal hinged on the assertion that the Judge failed to consider the totality principle, resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence, and neglected to apply a guilty plea discount for some charges.

The court evaluated whether the starting point for the reckless driving charge was too high, whether a guilty plea discount was applied for the domestic violence offences, and if the totality principle was considered when determining the uplift for the reckless driving charge. The starting point for the reckless driving charge was scrutinized, comparing it to similar cases. The court found that the starting point of 24 months was justified considering the excessive speed, evading police, and the serious injuries sustained by the passengers.

Regarding the domestic violence offences, although the Judge did not articulate the discount, the court accepted that a substantial discount was likely applied, and the resulting six-month uplift was within the appropriate range. The court also concluded that the total sentence, considering the totality of the offences and their nature, was not manifestly excessive.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence to be within the appropriate range and not manifestly excessive.

Orders