R v Cossey - [2018] NZHC 887

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2016-019-007230

[2018] NZHC 887

THE QUEEN

v

DYLAN COSSEY

Hearing: 20 April 2018

Appearances:

D McWilliam for the Crown

P Morgan QC for the Defendant

Sentencing:

20 April 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF HINTON J

Counsel/Solicitors:
Philip Morgan QC, Hamilton Gavin Boot Law, Hamilton Almao Douch, Hamilton

R v DYLAN COSSEY [2018] NZHC 887 [20 April 2018]

Introduction

[1]Mr Cossey, you appear for sentence having been convicted by a jury of:

(a)Four counts of manslaughter;1

(b)One count of racing causing injury;2 and

(c)One count of failing to stop and ascertain injury after an accident.3

The background facts

[2] The tragic facts are well known to everyone here, but I set them out for the record.

[3] On the evening of 24 June 2016, you were the driver of a Honda Integra travelling north on Ohaupo Road from Kihikihi to Te Awamutu. There were two other people in the car. Your co-defendant, Stephen Jones, was in the front passenger seat. Another associate was in the back seat.

[4] In Te Awamutu there was another vehicle, a Nissan Skyline, in which there were four occupants, including Mr Robinson who was the driver.

[5]No one in either vehicle knew the occupants of the other.

[6] Somewhere after Te Awamutu, as both motor vehicles travelled north towards Hamilton, they came together and were driving in the same vicinity. You and Mr Robinson then spontaneously started racing each other, from at least the Wild Thyme Café to the crash scene, travelling at high speed and close to each other throughout that time, which was a total of about nine minutes.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 177; maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 22A and 36A(2); maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment, with mandatory disqualification for one year or more.
3      Land Transport Act, ss 22, 36(1)(c) and 36(2); maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment, with mandatory disqualification for one year or more.

[7] You overtook each other a number of times ˗˗ in your case, probably only on the passing lanes on the Ohaupo Road State Highway.

[8]At one point, Mr Robinson’s vehicle nearly collided with a blue utility vehicle.

[9]Both cars were travelling at speeds of up to 140 kilometres per hour.

[10] Just before the intersection of Ohaupo Road and Penniket Road, Mr Robinson pulled into the southbound lane and overtook your car. Immediately after he passed you and pulled into the correct lane, you decelerated by changing down gear. Mere seconds later, as Mr Robinson was about to take a slight bend in the road, he lost control of the Skyline.

[11] Mr Robinson’s Skyline fishtailed into the southbound lane and skidded sideways, crashing into an oncoming van in the southbound lane. You managed to avoid hitting the two vehicles by driving to the side, slowing down in the process. Mr Jones told you to “gap it bro” and you accelerated away.

[12] All…

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 Cossey

Details

AGLC: R v Cossey [2018] NZHC 887
Case: [2018] NZHC 887
Decision Date: 20 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dylan Cossey was convicted of four counts of manslaughter, one count of racing causing injury, and one count of failing to stop and ascertain injury after an accident. The court had to determine the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering the nature and circumstances of the offending, the level of culpability, and the impact on the victims. The Crown argued for a starting point of eight to nine years’ imprisonment, while the defence submitted that a starting point of three years’ imprisonment was more appropriate. The court considered various cases and ultimately decided on a starting point of three years’ imprisonment for the manslaughter charges, and concurrent starting points of 18 months’ imprisonment for the racing causing injury and failing to stop charges. The court also considered personal circumstances, such as the offender’s remorse, participation in a rehabilitation programme, and employment prospects, and determined a global discount of 12 months was appropriate. The final sentence imposed was 12 months’ home detention to be served concurrently on each of the four manslaughter charges, six months’ home detention concurrently on the racing causing injury charge, and four months’ home detention concurrently on the failing to stop charge. The offender was also ordered to complete 400 hours of community work and disqualified from driving for a period of seven years.

The court considered the impact of the offending on the victims and their families, and the need for denunciation and deterrence of such offending. The court also took into account the purposes and principles of sentencing, including the need to hold the offender accountable for the harm done, assist in their rehabilitation and reintegration into the community, and impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances. The court recognised that while no sentence can bring back the victims or undo the damage caused, the sentence imposed should reflect the seriousness of the offending and the offender’s level of culpability.

Orders