Legal Research
Cases
Millar v R

Millar v R

Case [2019] NZCA 570 19 November 2019

Remorse and Reparation

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA226/2018
[2019] NZCA 570

BETWEEN	SCOTT DAVID MILLAR Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	12 March 2019
Court:	Cooper, Gilbert and Williams JJ
Counsel:	F E Guy Kidd QC for Appellant K S Grau for Respondent
Judgment:	19 November 2019 at 12 noon

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal is allowed.

BThe sentence of three years and 10 months is quashed, and a sentence of three years and three months is substituted on the lead charge of manslaughter. The concurrent sentence of two years in relation to reckless driving causing injury remains.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Williams J)

This is an appeal against sentence for manslaughter and reckless driving causing injury.[1] The appellant, Mr Millar, pleaded guilty to both charges and was sentenced to three years and 10 months’ imprisonment.[2]

Factual background

[1]The appellant initially intended to appeal both conviction and sentence, but abandoned the conviction appeal before the hearing.

[2]R v Millar [2018] NZHC 625.

On 10 August 2017, Mr Millar, then aged 19, was at an after-work barbecue. There he consumed a large quantity of alcohol. Later, at about 11.45 pm, he offered two people a lift home: a Mr Crawley, whom he had met recently, and a Mr Sharma, who was his good friend. Both lived in the area. They were also 19 years old.
Mr Millar did not drive his passengers straight home; instead he went on what Nation J called an “unnecessary joy-ride”.[3] Earlier in the journey, Mr Millar approached a T-intersection at speed. He lost control of the back end of the vehicle, slid sideways through the intersection, hit the opposing curb, and ran onto the footpath. This damaged a wheel rim, but did not puncture the tyre. A witness estimated his entry speed to the intersection at between 80 and 120 kilometres per hour. It was a 50 kilometre per hour area.
[3]At [10].
Mr Millar then sped off again at over 100 kilometres per hour. Both Mr Crawley and Mr Sharma asked Mr Millar to slow down, but he did not. According to Mr Crawley, Mr Millar went on to reach a speed of at least 180 kilometres per hour down an open road. He then performed “drifts” and “doughnuts” at various places. His last manoeuvre was to attempt another drift on a winding section of road. This caused the vehicle to slide off the road and roll down a steep bank. It stopped when it collided with a large tree.
The collision killed Mr Sharma almost instantly. Mr Millar received severe head injuries. Mr Crawley was also injured, but was able to get out of the vehicle to get help.
Around four hours after the crash, Mr Millar was found to have 142 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.
Mr Millar was charged with and later pleaded guilty to manslaughter and reckless driving causing injury.

The High Court decision

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 Millar v R

Details

AGLC: Millar v R [2019] NZCA 570
Case: [2019] NZCA 570
Decision Date: 19 November 2019 at 12 noon

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Millar v R, Scott David Millar appealed against his sentence for manslaughter and reckless driving causing injury. The court heard the appeal on 12 March 2019 and delivered its judgment on 19 November 2019. The appellant was represented by F E Guy Kidd QC and the Crown by K S Grau. The court quashed the original sentence and substituted a new sentence of three years and three months imprisonment on the manslaughter charge, while the concurrent sentence for reckless driving causing injury remained unchanged.

The legal issues in the case were whether the sentence imposed by the High Court was appropriate in light of the mitigating factors presented and whether the discounts for various factors were correctly applied. The appellant argued that a more significant discount should have been given for his guilty pleas, remorse, and other mitigating factors, while the Crown maintained that the original sentence was appropriate.

The Court of Appeal considered the youth discount, remorse and reparation discount, and the discount for other mitigating factors. The court concluded that a 15 per cent discount for youth was justified, a 10 per cent discount for remorse and reparation, and an eight per cent discount for other factors. The court also found that a 25 per cent discount for guilty pleas was appropriate in this case. Consequently, the total discount amounted to 39 months, leaving a final sentence of three years and three months on the manslaughter charge.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and substituted the original sentence with a sentence of three years and three months on the manslaughter charge, while the concurrent sentence for reckless driving causing injury remained unchanged.

Orders