R v A - [2020] NZHC 1169

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF THE NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE COMPLAINANT (INCLUDING NATURE OF HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE OFFENDER) PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-090-5804

[2020] NZHC 1169

THE QUEEN

v

A

Hearing: 29 May 2020

Appearances:

H D L Steele and A R Kempster for the Crown S Thode for the Defendant

Sentencing:

29 May 2020

SENTENCING BY PALMER J

Counsel/Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland Thode Utting & Co, Auckland

R v A [2020] NZHC 1169 [29 May 2020]

Introduction

[1] On 22 November 2018, Ms A, aged 43, drove over the complainant. She has pleaded guilty to wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The offence carries a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment. I sentence her today.

Approach to sentencing

[2] Sentencing is conducted for the purposes, and according to the principles, set out in ss 7 and 8 of the Sentencing Act 2002 (the Act). In this case, I have particular regard to the purposes of holding Ms A accountable for the harm done to the complainant and community; promoting in her a sense of responsibility for, and acknowledgement of, that harm; providing for the interests of the complainant; denouncing Ms A’s conduct; deterring similar future offending; protecting the community from her; and assisting in her rehabilitation and reintegration.

[3] In terms of principles I take into account, in particular: the gravity of the offending and the degree of Ms A’s culpability; the desirability of consistency of sentences for similar offending; the information I have about the effect of the offending on the complainant; Ms A’s personal background; and I impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances.

What happened?

[4] Around 6.15 am on 22 November 2018, Ms A was driving her car in the public car park at the Ranui Domain, in Ranui, West Auckland. The complainant was walking in the car park. Ms A drove the car at him, causing him to fall to the ground. She drove the car over him, inflicting life-threatening injuries.

[5] When speaking to the Police she accepted she hit him with the car but said he was already on the ground when she did so. On 30 November 2018, she was charged with wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. She has offered to engage in restorative justice but that has not been accepted to date. On 19 February 2020, she pleaded guilty, after she was re-arrested for breaching bail and two and a half weeks before the trial was scheduled to commence on 9 March 2020.

[6] The complainant suffered a fractured pelvis, broken neck, severe head injury and bleeding of the brain. He is now a tetraplegic with life-threatening effects on his lungs, bowel and bladder functioning. He is attending this sentencing by teleconference today with his carer. In his victim impact statement, which was…

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 R v A

Details

AGLC: R v A [2020] NZHC 1169
Case: [2020] NZHC 1169
Decision Date: 29 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v A involved Ms A, who had pleaded guilty to wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm after driving over the complainant and inflicting life-threatening injuries. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence, taking into account the principles and purposes of sentencing as set out in the Sentencing Act 2002. The primary legal issues included establishing a starting point for the sentence, considering any aggravating or mitigating factors, and determining the appropriate adjustments to the starting point.

The court began by establishing a starting point for the sentence, which was set at six years and two months' imprisonment. The court found that the seriousness of the offending was marginally worse than a similar case, R v Goyen, but less severe than R v Heremaia. The court then considered the various adjustments to the starting point. An uplift of eight months was added for the previous similar offending, while a discount of 13 months was applied for the defendant's mental health difficulties, early trauma, and addiction issues. A further discount of nine months was given for the defendant's guilty plea. After considering all these factors, the court sentenced Ms A to five years' imprisonment.

In conclusion, the court granted name suppression for the complainant, as well as interim name suppression for the defendant to allow for a potential appeal. The final orders included a sentence of five years' imprisonment for Ms A, as well as the name suppression orders.

Orders