McGregor v Police - [2025] NZHC 871

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2025-463-11

[2025] NZHC 871

BETWEEN
DONALD MCGREGOR

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 10 April 2025

Appearances:

X Wang for Appellant

M Tutton-Harris for Respondent

Judgment:

10 April 2025

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang On 10 April 2025 at 3.00 pm
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
Pollett Legal Ltd, Tauranga
X Wang, Law Aid International

MCGREGOR v POLICE [2025] NZHC 871 [10 April 2025]

[1] Mr McGregor pleaded guilty in the District Court to charges of causing death whilst carelessly driving a motor vehicle when he had an excess concentration of methamphetamine and THC (a central ingredient of cannabis) in his blood. On 10 January 2025, Judge G C Hollister-Jones sentenced Mr McGregor to 19 months’ imprisonment.1

[2] Mr McGregor appeals against the sentence. He contends the Judge ought to have made an order permitting him to apply to substitute a sentence of home detention for the sentence of imprisonment if he could find a suitable address.

The offending

[3] On the evening of 19 May 2023, Mr McGregor was the driver of a truck that was travelling in a westerly direction on State Highway 2 between Tauranga and Rotorua. He had commenced work approximately 12 hours earlier. He was returning the truck to his employer’s base in Rotorua at the end of his shift.

[4] The victim was driving a vehicle in an easterly direction on the same road. Mr McGregor failed to negotiate a slight left-hand bend and drifted onto the wrong side of the road. His vehicle crashed head-on into the victim’s vehicle, thereby causing fatal injuries to the 15-year-old victim.

[5] Mr McGregor was injured in the collision. He was taken to hospital, where a blood sample was taken. This showed that his blood contained a concentration of 20 nanograms per millilitre of methamphetamine. The tolerance level for methamphetamine is 10 nanograms per millilitre and the high-risk level is 50 nanograms per millilitre. The analysis also showed that Mr McGregor had three nanograms of THC per millilitre of blood. The high-risk level for THC is three nanograms per millilitre whilst the tolerance level is one nanogram per millilitre.

1 Police v McGregor [2025] NZDC 308.

The sentence

[6] Mr McGregor entered his guilty pleas after receiving a sentence indication from Judge Hollister-Jones on 10 October 2024. The Judge had indicated a starting point of two years’ imprisonment with a discount of 17 per cent for guilty plea.

[7] At sentencing, the Judge maintained the starting point he had selected, as well as the discount for guilty plea. He applied a further discount of three per cent to reflect the fact that Mr McGregor had provided him with a letter in which he accepted responsibility for the offending and expressed remorse. This resulted in the end sentence of 19 months’ imprisonment.

[8] Turning to the question of home detention, 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 McGregor v Police

Details

AGLC: McGregor v Police [2025] NZHC 871
Case: [2025] NZHC 871
Decision Date: 10 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellant, Mr McGregor, appeals against the sentence imposed by the District Court, which found him guilty of causing death whilst carelessly driving a motor vehicle with an excess concentration of methamphetamine and THC in his blood. The District Court sentenced Mr McGregor to 19 months’ imprisonment. Mr McGregor contends that the Judge erred in not making an order permitting him to apply to substitute a sentence of home detention if he could find a suitable address. The primary legal issue in this appeal is whether the District Court Judge erred in rejecting the appropriateness of a sentence of home detention and declining to make an order allowing Mr McGregor to apply for home detention if he could find a suitable address.

The High Court noted that the decision whether or not to impose a sentence of home detention is an exercise of a fettered discretion, constrained by the sentencing purposes and principles contained in the Sentencing Act 2002. The court will only intervene where it can be shown that the sentencing Judge took into account irrelevant principles, failed to take into account relevant principles, or came to a conclusion that was plainly wrong. The weight to be given to relevant factors is a matter for the sentencing Judge, and an appellate court will not substitute its own view of the weight that should be given to relevant factors. In this case, the District Court Judge concluded that the sentencing purposes of accountability and deterrence required a full-time custodial sentence. The High Court found that the Judge took into account relevant sentencing purposes, and the weight he gave to those was a matter for him.

The High Court was satisfied that the District Court Judge considered home detention was not a suitable sentencing option due to Mr McGregor's persistent drug use, criminal history, and lack of compliance with previous sentences. The court found no justification for interfering with the sentence in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Orders