[1] Mr Atkinson you have pleaded guilty following a sentence indication on one charge of manslaughter1 and one charge of driving with excess breath alcohol.2

[2] In outlining the sentence that will be imposed on you I will first summarise the offending, outline the appropriate starting point for offending of this kind, explain any adjustments that may be made to that starting point given your personal circumstances and give a final sentence. As a sentencing indication has already been given this sentencing necessarily repeats much of what I had said earlier.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 160(2)(a), 171 and 177, maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2 Land Transport Act 1998, s 56(1) and (4), maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment, 12 months’ disqualification or $6,000 fine.

R v ATKINSON [2020] NZHC 1568 [6 July 2020]

Your offending

[3] On 9 November 2019 you were at the Basin Reserve in Whanganui and consumed an unknown quantity of alcohol. You drove with an associate to Castlecliff where you were involved in a physical altercation with an unknown person. Afterwards you were driven to a residential address in Castlecliff. You took a car from that address and drove it to a second residential address. After a family altercation at that address, you drove the car to Anzac Parade with a female in the front passenger seat. You drove the car at excessive speeds, weaving in and out of the incoming lane. The female passenger repeatedly requested that you pull over but you refused.

[4] At the intersection of Anzac Parade and Georgetti Road your car collided with the victim’s motor scooter. The front right side of the car struck the victim, causing her to be thrown from the scooter. She was fatally injured and died at the scene.

[5] You failed to stop to check on her. You continued driving south. Your female passenger told you to pull over to check on the victim but you refused. You eventually stopped the car 1.3 kilometres away from the crash scene and ordered her to get out of the car. You left her on the side of the road and continued driving. You returned to the address in Castlecliff and parked the car, concealed from the road. You then used your t-shirt to try and clean up blood from the front of the car.

[6] You were later located at the address by police. Breath tests revealed your level of breath alcohol was over three times the legal limit.

The impact of the offending

[7] The victim was Jeanette Gibbs. Her youngest son Paul has provided a victim impact statement on behalf of the family. Paul has struggled with the thought…

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 Atkinson

Details

AGLC: R v Atkinson [2020] NZHC 1568
Case: [2020] NZHC 1568
Decision Date: 6 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of The Queen v Peter Anthony Laurence Atkinson involved a plea of guilty to one charge of manslaughter and one charge of driving with excess breath alcohol. The court was required to determine the appropriate starting point for sentencing, consider any adjustments to that starting point based on the defendant's personal circumstances, and finally determine the sentence. The Crown submitted that a starting point of seven years was appropriate, while the defence suggested six years and six months. The court considered various aggravating factors such as the consumption of alcohol, excessive speed, disregard for warnings from fellow passengers, and irresponsible behaviour at the time of the offence. The court concluded that a starting point of seven years' imprisonment was appropriate.

The court then assessed whether any adjustments to the starting point were warranted based on the defendant's personal circumstances. The defendant had a substantial criminal history, particularly for driving offences, but was subject to the three strikes regime, which meant the court had to order that he serve the full term of his sentence without any prospect of parole. The court considered whether there were particular circumstances relating to the offender that would make the otherwise appropriate sentence disproportionately severe but found no such circumstances. The court also considered the mitigating factors such as the defendant's cultural background, alcohol abuse, and remorse but found that these factors did not warrant a separate discount. However, the court considered a discount for remorse, alcohol abuse, deprivation, and rehabilitation potential, and decided that a total discount of approximately 10% was appropriate. The court also considered the discount for the early entry of the guilty plea, which amounted to a 25% discount. The court concluded that the end sentence should be four years and eight months' imprisonment.

The Crown submitted that a disqualification from driving for ten years from the date of sentencing was appropriate in light of the defendant's extensive history of driving-related offences. However, the court questioned the value in a lengthy period of disqualification after release and considered a three-year period of disqualification following release from imprisonment to be appropriate. The court imposed a sentence of four years and eight months' imprisonment without parole and a three-year disqualification from driving following release from imprisonment.

Orders