R v Bell - [2023] NZHC 416

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-404-004680

[2023] NZHC 416

THE KING

v

CALEB BELL

Hearing: 7 March 2023

Appearances:

H Steele and A Mackenzie for Crown

P L Borich KC for Defendant (by VMR)

Sentenced:

7 March 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland Counsel: P L Borich KC, Auckland

R v CALEB BELL [2023] NZHC 416 [7 March 2023]

[1] Caleb Bell, you are for sentence this morning having pleaded guilty to two charges of attempt to murder and one charge of driving with excess breath alcohol. The maximum penalty for the charges of attempted murder is 14 years’ imprisonment in each case.

[2] At about 2.00 pm on Wednesday, 25 January 2022 you were driving your Mitsubishi car north on Manukau Road in Epsom, Auckland. At the same time two young women, the victims of your offending, were standing waiting at a bus stop on Manukau Road near the intersection of Kimberley Road. The victims were unknown to you. As you approached the victims at approximately 50 km/h you suddenly swerved your car to the left, and, without braking, deliberately drove into the victims intending to kill them.

[3] The first victim was thrown onto the bonnet and hit her head on the car’s windscreen causing the windscreen to smash. Your car came to a stop against a brick wall pinning both victims until they were able to be freed by members of the public. Both were taken to Auckland Hospital for treatment.

[4] A short time later Police arrived and located you at the scene. You were clearly affected by alcohol. Breath test procedures were carried out and a result of 793 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath was obtained.

[5] As a result of the incident the first victim sustained a broken right ankle, broken left tibia, fractured shins, and extensive bruising to both legs. She has no memory of her head hitting the windscreen. She has multiple scars on her legs and ankle. The other victim sustained serious bruising to her left leg and has been left with skin discolouration and dent. Apart from the physical injuries it is apparent from the victim impact reports that the victims have been suffering ongoing stress and mental anguish.

[6] When you were spoken to by Police at the scene you said, “I finished my drink at the bar and after that I was feeling suicidal and feeling like killing people. I was driving past and saw two females on the side of the road so I thought just hit them, why not?” Later that same afternoon you took part in a recorded video interview at the police station. In the course of that interview you stated that life, both yours and

generally, was meaningless. You thought you may as well end your life and take some people with you. You confirmed your intention was to kill the victims even though…

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 Bell

Details

AGLC: R v Bell [2023] NZHC 416
Case: [2023] NZHC 416
Decision Date: 7 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The King v Caleb Bell involved the defendant being sentenced for two counts of attempted murder and one count of driving with excess breath alcohol. Caleb Bell had deliberately driven his car into two young women at a bus stop in Epsom, Auckland, intending to kill them. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for Bell's actions, considering the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act 2002, including accountability, deterrence, and the protection of the community. The court had to weigh Bell's personal circumstances, including his mental health issues, lack of previous convictions, and genuine remorse, against the gravity of his offending.

The court determined that a starting point of eight years was appropriate, considering the seriousness of the attempted murders and the use of a car as a weapon. The court accepted the Crown's suggestion of a 25% reduction for Bell's guilty pleas and further reductions for his mental health issues, lack of previous convictions, and prospects of rehabilitation, leading to an overall reduction of 55%. This resulted in a sentence of three years and seven months for the attempted murders and three months for driving with excess breath alcohol, with the sentences running concurrently. The court also disqualified Bell from driving for one year.

The final orders of the court were that Caleb Bell was sentenced to three years and seven months' imprisonment on each count of attempted murder and three months' imprisonment for driving with excess breath alcohol, with the sentences running concurrently. Bell was also disqualified from driving or holding a driver's licence for one year. The court left the issue of his appropriate release date to the Parole Board, which would provide further incentive for Bell to take advantage of relevant rehabilitative programs.

Orders