Legal Research
Cases
Marx v Police

Marx v Police

Case [2024] NZHC 1337 24 May 2024

Appeal

Sentencing

Compensatory Damages

Credit for Mitigating Factors

Remorse

Good Character

Disqualification from Driving

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2024-443-000014

[2024] NZHC 1337

BETWEEN
CHLOE RUTH MARX

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 23 May 2024 (via VMR)

Counsel:

M J Utting for Appellant

LA Blencowe for Respondent

Judgment:

24 May 2024

JUDGMENT OF LA HOOD J

Appeal against a sentence of home detention for dangerous driving causing injury

[1] Chloe Marx appeals against a sentence of eight months’ home detention and a two-year period of disqualification from driving imposed in the District Court on 26 March 2024,1 for four charges of dangerous driving causing injury.2 Ms Marx failed to give way at an intersection and hit another car, causing serious injury to passengers in the other car.

[2] On appeal, Mr Utting, for Ms Marx argues that the sentence of home detention was manifestly excessive on the grounds that the starting point was too high; insufficient discounts in mitigation were given; and the period of disqualification is manifestly excessive. The Crown submits that the Judge did not err and the end sentence is not manifestly excessive.

1 New Zealand Police v Marx [2024] NZDC 6940 [Decision on appeal].
2 Land Transport Act 1998, s 36(1)(b); maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment or $20,000 fine.

MARX v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 1337 [24 May 2024]

[3] I have concluded that the appeal should be allowed because the starting point was outside the available range, the credit for mitigating factors was clearly insufficient and the disqualification was excessive. The appropriate sentence was 11 months’ imprisonment, which should have been converted to the maximum period of community detention. The appropriate disqualification was 15 months.

The offending and decision on appeal

[4] Ms Marx, aged 33, pleaded guilty to four charges of dangerous driving causing injury on 30 November 2023. The offending is summarised in the Judge’s decision as follows:

[2] On the morning of 13 August last year, you were driving a car on Pitt Road, which is a rural road near Auckland. You were approaching an intersection with Great South Road, which at that point is also another rural road. There was minimal traffic, the road was dry, visibility was good. It was overcast so there was no problem with the sun.

[3] Pitt Road has a give way sign at the intersection and there is a sign warning of the upcoming give way sign 200 metres back from the intersection. There were also rumble strips across the road for 200 metres to indicate the upcoming intersection.

[4] As you were approaching the intersection another vehicle was travelling on Great North Road. You failed to give way at the intersection and collided with the side of the other vehicle. There were four people in the other vehicle, all suffered injuries.

[5] A 44 year old woman suffered multiple fractures to her pelvis, a broken bone in her leg, bleeding on the brain, concussion, and a deep laceration on the back of…

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 Marx v Police

Details

AGLC: Marx v Police [2024] NZHC 1337
Case: [2024] NZHC 1337
Decision Date: 24 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chloe Marx appeals against a sentence of eight months’ home detention and a two-year period of disqualification from driving imposed by the District Court. Ms Marx had failed to give way at an intersection, causing a collision that resulted in serious injuries to the occupants of the other vehicle. Mr Utting, for Ms Marx, submits that the starting point for sentencing was too high, insufficient credit was given for mitigating factors, and the disqualification period was excessive. The Crown submits that the sentence was appropriate. The appeal was allowed because the starting point was outside the available range, the credit for mitigating factors was insufficient, and the disqualification period was excessive. The appropriate sentence was 11 months’ imprisonment, which should have been converted to the maximum period of community detention. The appropriate disqualification was 15 months.

The offending occurred on 13 August when Ms Marx, driving on Pitt Road, failed to give way at an intersection with Great South Road and collided with another vehicle. The collision resulted in serious injuries to four occupants of the other vehicle and a dog in the car. Ms Marx pleaded guilty to four charges of dangerous driving causing injury. The Judge considered the gravity of the offending to be serious, noting the multiple warnings of the intersection, Ms Marx’s failure to look out, and the serious injuries suffered by the victims. The Judge took a starting point of two years and three months’ imprisonment, allowed credit for a prompt guilty plea, remorse, and good character, and converted the resulting end point of 17 and a half months’ imprisonment to a sentence of eight months’ home detention. The Judge also disqualified Ms Marx from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for two years and ordered her to pay reparation of $3,679.

In assessing the arguments, the starting point of two years and three months’ imprisonment was considered too high. The Judge’s starting point did not reflect the appropriate level of culpability, given the temporary lapse of judgement rather than a prolonged, persistent, or intentional course of bad driving. The Court concluded that the starting point should not have exceeded 20 months’ imprisonment. The credit for mitigating factors was also found to be insufficient, as an overall credit of 20 per cent was required given Ms Marx’s exemplary character, genuine remorse, and the consequences of her sentence on her family. The two-year period of disqualification was considered excessive, and a disqualification period of 15 months was deemed sufficient to protect the public and hold Ms Marx accountable.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence of home detention was quashed and substituted with a sentence of three months’ community detention. The period of disqualification was reduced to 15 months.

Orders