R v Eastwick - [2024] NZHC 2086

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2024-209-8

[2024] NZHC 2086

THE KING

v

RYAN WILLIAM REX EASTWICK

Hearing: 30 July 2024

Appearances:

D L Elsmore and B W D Alexander for Crown E C Bulger for Defendant

Judgment:

30 July 2024

SENTENCING NOTES OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] Mr Eastwick, you are here for sentence today having pleaded guilty to, and been convicted on a charge of manslaughter.

Facts of the offending

[2] The facts of the offending are as follows. On 7 August 2023, when you were 14 years old, you were at home in Christchurch with your mother. You spent most of that evening in your room and your mother noticed that you appeared down and flat in mood.

[3] You were engaged in a Snapchat group with approximately 10 other youths aged from 13 to 22 years old. A 13 year associate in the group had previously told you

R v EASTWICK [2024] NZHC 2086 [30 July 2024]

to kill yourself on several occasions. That evening you again received a message from the 13 year old via the Snapchat group, telling you to kill yourself.

[4] At some point in the evening your mother gave you a hug goodnight and she went to bed. After she had gone to bed you took the keys to her vehicle, a white Toyota Corolla, and commenced driving at speeds of between 150 and 190 km/ph towards West Coast Road, taking photos of the vehicle’s odometer and sending it to the Snapchat group you belong to. You also sent messages saying goodbye.

[5] At approximately 10.57 pm you called your mother crying and said goodbye and this call lasted 22 seconds. You then sent a further four text messages to your mother saying goodbye.

[6] At approximately 11.10 pm the victim in this matter, Sandra Loveday, was travelling east on West Coast Road at approximately 100 km/ph. You were travelling in the opposite direction at approximately 150 km/ph. You veered the steering wheel six degrees to the right into the eastbound lane, 2.3 seconds prior to impact, crossing over to the wrong side of the road. You then straightened up in the victim’s lane, colliding head on with her. The victim’s vehicle was shunted to the right and your vehicle was propelled some 500 metres ahead and landed on its roof. The victim died at the scene, and you were taken to Christchurch hospital in a critical condition.

Sentencing purpose and principles

[7] Sentencing you today is a very difficult exercise. There are strongly competing purposes and principles of sentencing at play here.

[8] On the one hand, it is important that I hold you accountable for the harm done to the victim and the community by your offending, including all those who have been devastated by her death. It is also relevant that, in sentencing you, I promote in you a sense of responsibility for and acknowledgement of that harm,…

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 Eastwick

Details

AGLC: R v Eastwick [2024] NZHC 2086
Case: [2024] NZHC 2086
Decision Date: 30 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, the case of The King v Ryan William Rex Eastwick involves the sentencing of the defendant who had pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter. The defendant, a 14-year-old at the time of the offence, drove his mother's vehicle at excessive speeds and deliberately crashed into another vehicle, causing the death of the other driver. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence, balancing the purposes of sentencing such as accountability, denunciation, deterrence, and the defendant's rehabilitation.

The legal issues centred on establishing a suitable starting point for the sentence, taking into account the gravity of the offence and the degree of culpability, as well as considering both aggravating and mitigating factors. The court considered various cases to establish a starting point, acknowledging the unique circumstances of this case, including the defendant's deliberate actions, excessive speed, and the lack of any mitigating factors such as alcohol or drugs. The court determined a starting point of seven and a half years' imprisonment, adjusted for mitigating factors such as the defendant's guilty plea, youth, mental health issues, injuries sustained, and demonstrated remorse.

After considering these factors, the court imposed a sentence of two years and eight months' imprisonment, along with a two-year disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver's licence upon release. This sentence aims to hold the defendant accountable while also considering his rehabilitation and the need to protect the public.

Orders