R v Atutahi - [2024] NZHC 3545

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2024-077-426

[2024] NZHC 3545

THE KING

v

PATRICK ATUTAHI

Hearing: 25 November 2024

Appearances:

L McMaster for Crown

M Simpkins for Defendant

Sentence:

25 November 2024

SENTENCING NOTES OF MOORE J

Solicitors: Simpkins Legal

R v ATUTAHI [2024] NZHC 3545 [25 November 2024]

[1] Patrick Atutahi, at the age of 35, you appear for sentence on a charge of manslaughter and three charges of dangerous driving causing injury. It is my task to sentence you.

[2] However, before doing so, I wish to acknowledge the victims of your offending and their whānau, and to acknowledge the courage and dignity which with their statements were read in Court this morning. Nothing I can say today, let alone any sentence I impose, can take away the grief that Wharerangi McMillan-Sullivan’s whānau feel for his death, nor the pain and suffering that you caused Mr Beaufill or the Purvis family. I acknowledge Wharerangi’s loss, and I extend the Court’s deepest sympathies to you all.

The offending

[3] Mr Atutahi, it is first necessary for me to set out the facts of your offending. Obviously, these are well known to you. However, because sentencing is quintessentially a public function it is necessary for me, in this forum, to repeat them. These are the facts you have admitted to.

[4]On 26 September 2023, an associate purchased a Volvo on your behalf. It cost

$200. It was in poor condition. It didn’t have a warrant of fitness. It was unregistered. The front right tyre was worn and the speedometer was faulty. In fact, so bad was it that the previous owner was planning to sell it to a local wrecker. Put bluntly it should never have been on the road. It was a risk to all other road users and so it tragically proved to be.

[5] The next day, 27 September 2023, you joined Jimmy Beaufill and Wharerangi at Mr Beaufill’s address. There you all left in the Volvo, with Mr Beaufill’s dog. You drove to a family address in Tapapa, on the outskirts of Putaruru. There, you all drank. You got drunk.

[6] Eventually, you decided it was time to leave. The Volvo had to be jump-started. A family member tried to persuade you not to drive. He offered you alternatives, such as allowing you all to stay at his address or driving you all back himself.

[7] You refused to listen. You thought you knew better. Instead, you drove off aggressively with Wharerangi and Mr Beaufill. Wharerangi was seated in the front. Mr Beaufill and his dog were seated behind.

[8] As you drove, you had your seat reclined back. You drove at an excessive speed, above 100 kilometres per hour. Your driving scared your passengers. Fearing that they would crash, Mr Beaufill asked you several times to slow down. You paid no notice. You told him to “fuck up”.

[9] Another vehicle, a Land…

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 Atutahi

Details

AGLC: R v Atutahi [2024] NZHC 3545
Case: [2024] NZHC 3545
Decision Date: 25 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Atutahi was heard, where Patrick Atutahi was charged with manslaughter and three counts of dangerous driving causing injury. The court heard the facts of the case, where Atutahi had driven a dangerously defective vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and cannabis, resulting in a fatal collision that caused the death of Wharerangi McMillan-Sullivan and serious injuries to three other individuals. Atutahi's decision to drive despite warnings and his prior driving history were key factors in the court's consideration.

The legal issues the court needed to decide included determining an appropriate starting point for sentencing based on the severity of the offence, adjusting that starting point based on Atutahi's personal circumstances, and considering the impact on the victims and their families. The court also needed to decide on the appropriate length of disqualification from driving and any financial penalties.

The court set a starting point of seven years' imprisonment, reflecting the dangerous nature of Atutahi's driving and the tragic consequences. The court found mitigating factors such as Atutahi's guilty plea and aspects of his background that contributed to his offending, which led to a reduction in the sentence. Ultimately, the court sentenced Atutahi to four years and ten months' imprisonment, to be served concurrently, and disqualified him from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for four years post-release. Additionally, Atutahi was ordered to pay for the alcohol and drug testing administered on him.

Orders