Lay v Police - [2024] NZHC 1118

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2024-463-029

[2024] NZHC 1118

BETWEEN
DARYLL LAY

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 7 May 2024

Appearances:

M Douglas (via VMR on behalf of W T Nabney) for Appellant A Maino for Respondent

Judgment:

8 May 2024

JUDGMENT OF GRAU J

[Appeal against sentence]

[1] On 5 March 2024, Judge Hollister-Jones sentenced Mr Lay to 19 months’ imprisonment on three charges of reckless driving causing injury, one charge of reckless driving, and one charge of failing to stop and ascertain injury.1

[2] Mr Lay appeals his sentence. The sole issue on appeal is whether the Judge should have commuted the prison sentence to home detention.

The offending

[3] Mr Lay’s Mongrel Mob gang patch was stolen by a Black Power gang member. The result was a dangerous high speed car chase on a main arterial route in Rotorua at

1 Police v Lay [2024] NZDC 4951; charges pursuant to Land Transport Act 1998, ss 35(1)(a) (maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or $4,500 fine), and 36(1)(a) and (c) (maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment or $20,000 fine) respectively.

LAY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 1118 [8 May 2024]

approximately 6:00 pm on Saturday 3 June 2023. It was a public holiday weekend and traffic was heavier than usual. Mr Lay was driving a car containing five Mongrel Mob associates. He was chasing a car containing Black Power members. The Police received numerous calls relating to the two cars speeding and overtaking dangerously.

[4] CCTV footage showed two cars travelling at high speeds, driving on the wrong side of the road, overtaking, undertaking, and driving through red lights. At times both cars drove through road cones, were weaving through oncoming traffic, driving on the opposite side of the road and through intersections at high speed.

[5] The chase continued for approximately four kilometres forcing numerous members of the public to take evasive action. The Black Power car drove through a red light at the Tarawera and Te Ngae Road intersection which is controlled by traffic lights and consists of 12 lanes in all directions. It collided with the victims’ car. Mr Lay, following immediately behind and also driving through the red light at speed, also collided with the victims’ car.

[6] Mr Lay and all the occupants of his car immediately left the scene, chasing the occupants of the other gang car on foot. They did not stop and check to see whether anyone was injured.

[7] The first victim, the front seat passenger, received sprains to her neck, back and right ribs and bruising to both legs and torso. The second victim, the driver, received sprains to his ribs and right ankle, bruising to his face, both legs and an open wound on his right hand. The third victim, the rear seat passenger, received bruising to both legs. None of the victims provided victim impact statements.

Sentencing decision under appeal

[8]…

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 Lay v Police

Details

AGLC: Lay v Police [2024] NZHC 1118
Case: [2024] NZHC 1118
Decision Date: 8 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Darryl Lay appeals against his sentence for driving-related charges, contending that his sentence should have been commuted to home detention. The Crown accepts the starting point and the end point of the sentence, but submits that the Judge was entitled to give greater weight to denunciation and deterrence over rehabilitation prospects. The High Court held that the Judge did not err in his approach, considering the principles of sentencing and the seriousness of the offending, and that the sentence of imprisonment was appropriate. The Court found that the Judge made a principled and considered choice between the two forms of sentence, recognising the purposes of denunciation and deterrence as requiring a sentence at the top of the hierarchy of sentences.

Lay was involved in a high-speed chase, resulting in a collision that injured three people. The offending was gang-motivated and put the public at serious risk. The District Court Judge sentenced Lay to 19 months’ imprisonment, noting his criminal history and the need to denounce such dangerous behaviour. Lay appeals on the basis that the Judge should have commuted the sentence to home detention, considering his efforts at rehabilitation. The High Court found that the Judge did not err in his approach, as he considered all relevant factors and made a principled choice between the two forms of sentence. The Court found that the sentence of imprisonment was appropriate to denounce and deter such dangerous gang-related behaviour that was a risk to the public in Rotorua. The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Orders