R v Elliot - [2014] NZHC 214

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-090-4551

CRI-2013-090-4552 [2014] NZHC 214

THE QUEEN

v

CALUM ELLIOT AND DYLAN CHAD

Hearing: 19 February 2014

Counsel: SL McColgan for the Crown
M Pecotic for the prisoner Elliot
J Munro for the prisoner Chad

Sentence: 19 February 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF RODNEY HANSEN J

Solicitors/Counsel: Meredith Connell, Auckland for Crown
Maria Pecotic, Auckland for Elliot
John Munro, Auckland for Chad

R v ELLIOT AND CHAD [2014] NZHC 214 [19 February 2014]

Introduction

[1] Mr Chad and Mr Elliot, you appear for sentence having both pleaded guilty to causing the death of Tyler Hoyle by driving dangerously, thereby committing manslaughter.

[2] Following a sentencing indication I gave on 22 November 2013,1 you both entered the pleas of guilty. In my decision I indicated that an appropriate sentence for each of you would be nine months home detention and an order that you be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for three years.

[1] I have since received pre-sentence reports and a psychological report in relation to you, Mr Chad. The pre-sentence report for you, Mr Elliot, raises concerns about your suitability for a sentence of home detention. However, for reasons which I will elaborate later in my remarks, I am satisfied that the indicated sentence should stand.

Facts

[2] I will first set out what are agreed to be the circumstances that led up to

Mr Hoyle’s death and your role in it.

[3] The two of you and Tyler Hoyle were good friends. On 1 August 2013, you were together at Mr Elliot’s house with his girlfriend, Mary-Rose Stewart. The two of you had a friendly disagreement over whose car was faster - Mr Elliot’s Honda Prelude or Mr Chad’s Toyota Levin.

[4] It was agreed that the disagreement would be settled by a race which would take place on Scott Road in Hobsonville. That location was chosen because it is a quiet road in a sparsely populated area. It has an 80 kilometre per hour speed limit. You drove there, Mr Elliot, accompanied by Ms Stewart and Mr Chad accompanied
by Mr Hoyle.

1 R v Elliot and Chad [2013] NZHC 3100.

[5] It was arranged that Ms Stewart would stand at the start of the race and signal when to begin. Tyler was stationed at the end point of the race where the road curved out of sight. His role was to wave his arms to alert the two of you to any traffic coming towards you from the other direction. He was also to take a photo at the end of the race and to decide who was the winner. As I understand it, the race was over a distance of about 150 metres with Mr Hoyle stationed past the finishing point. As it has been described to me, this was not so much a race over a defined distance, as a test of which car had the greatest acceleration.

[6] The race started…

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 Elliot

Details

AGLC: R v Elliot [2014] NZHC 214
Case: [2014] NZHC 214
Decision Date: 19 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In R v Elliot, the High Court of New Zealand sentenced the defendants, Mr. Elliot and Mr. Chad, for causing the death of Tyler Hoyle through dangerous driving, resulting in manslaughter. The court identified several legal issues, including the appropriate starting point for sentencing, the impact of aggravating and mitigating factors, and the suitability of home detention as a sentence. The court concluded that an appropriate starting point was three years imprisonment, considering factors such as the defendants' participation in a race, the excessive speed, and the death resulting from the incident. However, mitigating factors like the defendants' age, remorse, and willingness to participate in restorative justice reduced the sentence by at least one-third, leading to a sentence of 18 months imprisonment. The court opted for a sentence of nine months home detention for each defendant, emphasizing the importance of rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. The court also ordered a three-year disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for both defendants.

The court reasoned that home detention was a suitable sentence, provided that the defendants could secure appropriate accommodation and actively participate in the conditions set out in the pre-sentence reports. For Mr. Chad, the grandparents' home was deemed suitable, whereas for Mr. Elliot, the court acknowledged concerns about his ability to cope with the rigors of home detention and emphasized the need for structured activities. The court concluded that home detention would not be a soft option and stressed the importance of the defendants availing themselves of the treatment, counseling, and support offered to them. The court also highlighted the need for the defendants to seek work or study opportunities during their sentence to lay a foundation for a constructive existence post-sentence. The final orders included a sentence of nine months home detention and a three-year disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for both defendants.

Orders