R v Booker
[2025] NZHC 1077
•6 May 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CRI-2024-092-7096
[2025] NZHC 1077
THE KING v
JOSEPH GIOVANNI BOOKER
Hearing: 6 May 2025 Appearances:
A Al-Janabi for the Crown
D Taumihau and A Jordan for the Defendant
Sentencing:
6 May 2025
Reissued:
14 August 2025
(REDACTED AND ANONYMISED) SENTENCING NOTES OF ANDREW J
R v BOOKER [2025] NZHC 1077 [6 May 2025]
[1] Kia ora Mr Booker, Joseph, you may remain seated until I ask you to stand at the end of my sentencing.
[2] Mr Booker, you appear this morning for sentence having pleaded guilty to one charge of reckless driving causing injury1 and one charge of driving with excess blood alcohol.2
[3]I’m going to start my remarks by referring to the facts of your offending.
The facts
[4] You and Ms W entered into a relationship in March 2024. During the course of that brief relationship, Police attended three family harm incidents involving you and Ms W.
[5] On Saturday 3 August 2024, you were with Ms W at her family’s home address in Manurewa. You were both preparing to attend a 21st birthday party for one of Ms W’s brothers on the North Shore.
[6] During the course of the afternoon and early evening, you and Ms W began to argue. You were both already intoxicated by that point. You moved to Ms W’s bedroom, where the argument continued. And during the argument, you punched a hole in the wall.
[7] Ms W’s older brother Joshua went to the bedroom, in order to separate the two of you. He sent you out to your car. However, Ms W followed you, and the argument continued.
[8] Eventually, the rest of Ms W’s family began leaving the house to make their way to the same birthday party. Ms W was offered a ride by her brother and sister-in-law, but she refused to accompany them, and she remained with you.
1 Land Transport Act 1998, ss 36(1)(a) and 36(2). Maximum penalty: 5 years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $20,000, and disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver licence for a minimum of one year.
2 Sections 56(2) and (3). Maximum penalty: 3 months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding
$4,500, and disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver licence for a minimum of 6 months.
[9] You intended to leave without going to the party, but Ms W followed you. She had your phone in her possession, and refused to give it back.
[10]You got into the Honda Civic vehicle, as did Ms W.
[11] You initially began driving towards the party, but returned to Ms W’s house because she had forgotten something. She could not enter her house because it was locked and, while you were both outside, you unsuccessfully tried to retrieve your phone from her.
[12] You then tried to leave again, but Ms W again followed you to try to speak to you. She got back into the passenger seat of your car, and did not put on a seatbelt.
[13] As you drove away from Ms W’s house, you both continued to argue. You were driving above the speed limit and were affected by the alcohol that you had consumed earlier that evening.
[14] Ms W told you that she was going to leave you and that she did not care if you went to the birthday party.
[15] You then accelerated further. Ms W told you to slow down. In response, you said “I’m going to kill us both”.
[16] You drove onto Adams Road, Manurewa, which is a short residential cul-de-sac street. You accelerated the vehicle and drove directly into a stationary Isuzu truck at the end of the road, colliding with significant force.
[17] Moments before the collision, you applied the brakes. However, this was insufficient to prevent the collision. The point of impact was from the front left-hand side of the vehicle, which included subsequent internal impact to the front passenger seat.
[18] Although Ms W was seated in the back left passenger seat, because she was not wearing a seatbelt, she was thrown forward, causing her forehead to collide with the front windscreen of the vehicle.
[19] A blood sample taken from you later indicated that your blood contained 82 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood — that’s 32 mg over the legal limit and 2 mg over the offence limit.3
Victim impact statements
[20] I now address the victim impact statement, or the report, that I have had read to me this morning.
[21] Your offending clearly caused significant injuries to Ms W and the accident has clearly had a very profound and lasting effect on her. It could all so easily have been avoided.
Approach to sentencing
[22] I will now deal with my approach to sentencing. Sentencing has probably been explained to you as a two-step process.4 In the first step, I must indicate what starting point the offending of this kind attracts. That involves an assessment of the aggravating and mitigating factors of your offending — that is, those matters that make it more or less serious — and a comparison with the starting points set in comparable cases. In the second step, I will take account of any factors personal to you to determine whether the starting point should be increased or decreased. And that results in the final or the end sentence — that is, the actual sentence that you will serve.
[23] In applying these steps, I must consider the relevant purposes and principles of sentencing.5 The sentence I impose on you today is intended to hold you accountable for the harm that you have caused to Ms W,6 to promote in you a sense of responsibility for that harm,7 to denounce your conduct and to deter others from acting in similar ways.8 I must also have regard to the need to assist in your rehabilitation.9
3 Section 56.
4 Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296 at [46].
5 Sentencing Act 2002, ss 7–8.
6 Section 7(a).
7 Section 7(b).
8 Section 7(e)–(f).
9 Section 7(h).
[24] I take account of the gravity and seriousness of your offending,10 the desirability of consistency in sentencing,11 the effect of your offending on Ms W,12 and the need to impose the least restrictive sentence available in the circumstances.13
Step 1 — adjusted starting point
[25]So coming to the starting point — the adjusted starting point — at step one.
[26] As you will have heard from the lawyers, there is not what we call a guideline judgment for a sentencing of a charge of reckless driving causing injury. That’s because of the wide range of circumstances this kind of offending can give rise to. What I am going to do is to consider the starting points adopted in the cases provided to me by the lawyers, those that involve similar circumstances to your offending that will assist me, obviously, in reaching the starting point. And in undertaking that consideration, I take account of factors that make your offending more or less serious than the offending in those cases.
Aggravating and mitigating factors
[27] The aggravating and mitigating factors specific to a charge of reckless driving causing injury were set out by the Court of Appeal in a case called Gacitua v R.14 The Crown has submitted that five of those aggravating factors are relevant here and your counsel has accepted that those are applicable. But there is a dispute about the weight to be given to those factors.
[28] First, I note that your offending involved the consumption of alcohol that was demonstrably above the legal limit to operate a motor vehicle. Second, you drove at greatly excessive speed in a residential area — somewhere between 70 to 90 km/h when the speed limit was 50 km/h. Third, you completely disregarded the warnings to slow down given by Ms W. Fourth, your driving was deliberately aggressive. And I accept the force of the Crown submission here that there was a high degree of
10 Section 8 (a)–(b).
11 Section 8(e).
12 Section 8(f).
13 Section 8(g).
14 Gacitua v R [2013] NZCA 234.
recklessness — and this is clear, I think, from your admission to the Police that your overall intent was “Just crashing” the vehicle.
[29] Fifth, the injuries to Ms W were serious, including a collapsed lung, multiple fractures to her vertebrae and ribs, and multiple facial lacerations. As I’ve said, Ms W’s victim impact statement makes it clear that the injuries she sustained have had a profound effect on her.
[30] Your counsel has submitted that, since you sustained a fracture to your arm in the crash, I should consider that as a mitigating factor of your offending. While I take account of that injury, I do not ultimately consider it sufficiently serious to be given any real weight in this case.
Comparable cases
[31]So I turn now to the comparable cases.
[32] The Crown has referred me to three cases they say involved offending similar to yours and your counsel has provided one case she says bears some similarity. The starting point in these cases ranged from two to three years’ imprisonment.
[33] As you’ve heard, the Crown submits that there should be starting point of four years’ imprisonment. They emphasise the aggravating features present in the case, and say it is more serious than the cases they have cited to me.15 They also say that the injuries sustained by Ms W are more serious than in those cases cited.
[34] Your counsel submit that a case called Tohu v Police16 is more similar to the present case, given the similar degree of intentional and unsafe driving, the driver’s impairment due to the substances taken, and that a single passenger was injured. It is also suggested that Tohu was somewhat more serious than your case. It is suggested on your behalf that I adopt a starting point of between 28 and 30 months’ imprisonment.
15 Hazel v Police [2020] NZHC 609; Walshe v Police [2019] NZHC 3068; and Tamehana v R [2019] NZHC 2850
16 Tohu v Police [2021] NZHC 2660.
[35] Your offending is very serious, but I am not convinced that your offending was such or so much more serious than the cases referred to by the Crown to justify the Crown’s contention for a four-year starting point — that is a year higher than the comparable case with a higher starting point. And I am referring here to the case of Tamehana v R.
[36] I find that your culpability is broadly similar to the defendants in Walshe and Tohu. In Walshe, the Judge adopted a 32-month starting point, noting that the defendant was disqualified from driving, was evading Police at the time of the crash and followed a persistent course of deliberate bad driving. In that case, there were moderately serious injuries to two persons.
[37] In Tohu v Police (the case your lawyer relies on), the Judge adopted a starting point on appeal of 30 months’ imprisonment. In that case, the driver was unlicensed, under the influence of methamphetamine, drove at excessive speed and in a deliberate and persistent course of very bad driving. The injuries to the passenger were serious and, like your case, the passenger had warned the offender to slow down.
Starting point
[38] Having reviewed all these comparable cases, I consider an adjusted starting point of two years and six months’ imprisonment (30 months) is appropriate.
Step 2 — Personal factors
[39] I now turn to stage two to address the personal factors — aggravating and mitigating factors personal to you.
[40]Counsel are agreed that there are no aggravating personal factors.
[41]There are nevertheless several mitigating factors to address.
[42] Firstly, I note that you have no previous convictions. The Crown says the discount applied to reflect this should be reduced to take account of the demerits on your license for speeding and using a mobile phone while driving. I agree that these
are relevant. However, I consider a discount of 10 per cent is appropriate for your previous good character. And in reaching that conclusion I have read and considered the significant and very positive letters of support from whānau, friends and your work colleagues.
[43] Counsel agree that a discount of around 15 per cent for youth is appropriate. I concur and I adopt that discount.
[44] I also note that you pleaded guilty to the amended charges at the earliest opportunity. Accordingly, a discount of 25 per cent for that early guilty plea is appropriate.
[45] Your counsel seeks a further discount for your apparent remorse. In a letter to me, you acknowledge your actions and take some responsibility for the harm suffered by Ms W. I consider in the circumstances here that a discount of five per cent is sufficient to reflect your apparent remorse.
[46] In total, therefore I consider a discount of 55 per cent is appropriate. Taken from the 30-month imprisonment starting point, this comes down to 13-and-a-half months’ imprisonment.
[47] Your counsel has sought a discount of some further two-and-a-half months to reflect the time you have spent on EM bail. I am required to take this into consideration in reaching the final or the end sentence.17 The writer of the Provision of Advice to Courts (what we call “PAC”) report noted you had maintained contact with the victim while on bail, in contravention of your initial bail conditions. Following this breach of bail simpliciter, you spent 18 days in custody before being released on EM bail. You have since been compliant. Despite your initial breach of bail, I consider that the proposed discount of two-and-a-half months is appropriate to reflect your compliance whilst on EM bail.
[48]Accordingly, the sentence is reduced to one of 11 months’ imprisonment.
17 Sentencing Act, s 9(2)(h); and Paora v R [2021] NZCA 559 at [44].
Home detention
[49] That 11 months reached brings your sentence within the range in which a sentence of home detention may be considered.18 Section 80A of the Sentencing Act requires me to consider your PAC report in determining whether a sentence of home detention is appropriate. That report recommends home detention given the potential such a sentence has to support your rehabilitation while still holding you accountable for your actions.
[50] I acknowledge your counsel’s submission that I should impose a sentence of community detention. However, I find that such a sentence would not adequately reflect the seriousness of this offending.
[51] Accordingly, I consider a sentence of home detention to be the most appropriate outcome. There is nothing to suggest that I should divert from the usual practice of halving the sentence of imprisonment in imposing a sentence of home detention, so I find ultimately that you should receive an end sentence of five-and-a-half months’ home detention. That is to be served at [redacted], Auckland, together with the conditions recommended in that PAC report.
Conclusion and sentence
[52]Mr Booker, would you please stand.
[53] Mr Booker, on the charge of reckless driving causing injury and driving with excess blood alcohol, I sentence you to five-and-a-half months’ home detention.
[54] On the charge of reckless driving causing injury, you are disqualified from driving for one year. On the charge of driving with excess blood alcohol, you are disqualified from driving for six months. Those disqualifications are to be served concurrently.
18 Section 15A.
[55]Please stand down.
Andrew J
0
5
0