R v Felise

[2019] NZHC 341

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI 2018-004-000832

[2019] NZHC 341

THE QUEEN

v

MYRON FELISE

Hearing:	28 February 2019
Appearances:	B Dickey & E Smith for Crown M Pecotic for Defendant
Judgment:	28 February 2019

SENTENCING NOTES OF JUSTICE VAN BOHEMEN

Solicitors/Counsel:

Meredith Connell, Auckland M Pecotic, Auckland

R v FELISE [2019] NZHC 341 [28 February 2019]

[1]                  Myron Robert Alf Felise, you appear for sentencing in this court on a single charge,  having  pleaded  guilty  to  the  manslaughter  of  Eli  Francis  Holtz  on     14 November 2018.1 The maximum sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment.2 I have previously given you a first strike warning as required by law.

[2]                  Before I begin the formal part of my sentencing remarks, I acknowledge the presence here today of the Holtz family and Loraini Ramage, Eli’s birth mother. We have already heard the Victim Impact Statements from the members of the Holtz family. We have also heard the statement from Mrs Felise. I pay tribute to all of you and your families for the dignified way you have dealt with this tragedy.

[3]                  Everyone at the back of the Court has been through a terrible time over the last year. None of you could have imagined being in this situation. Sadly – a word I will use a lot today – we are here, and we have to deal with the consequences of those tragic events that took place on the streets of downtown Auckland just over a year ago.

The facts

[4]                  Mr Felise, I begin by recalling the factual basis upon which I am sentencing you today.

[5]                  The events in question took  place in  the  early  hours  of the  morning  on  27 January 2018. Mr Felise, you had been visiting Auckland for your mother’s birthday and had gone out drinking in Central Auckland with a number of friends. Mr Holtz, was also out in Central Auckland that night, in the front passenger seat of a car driven by a friend.

[6]                  Your paths crossed at around 3am. You were standing with an associate at the driver’s side window of a car parked on the side of Wellesley Street West, just up from the intersection with Queen Street. Mr Holtz’s car drew alongside you as it approached the intersection. Mr Holtz – foolishly no doubt - fired a single water pellet at you from a toy rifle. The pellet hit you in the lower back, angering you, but not causing you any injury.

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 160(2)(a), 171.

2      Crimes Act 1961, s 177(1).

[7]                  Mr Holtz’s car stopped for the traffic lights at the intersection just down the road from you. You started towards it, brushing off the efforts of a friend to restrain you. You opened the door and began to attack Mr Holtz. You first struck him in the head using your fist and then struck his body with the pellet gun, breaking the gun. Mr Holtz raised his hands in defence of two further punches you delivered to his head. After that, his hands dropped as he lost consciousness. You punched Mr Holtz in the head three more times. The force of the punches was significant and made his head jolt backwards and sideways.

[8]                  The attack on Mr Holtz ended only when one of your friends pulled you away from the vehicle, leaving the driver to respond to the injuries. Mr Holtz was taken to hospital with the assistance of police, but never regained consciousness. The attack was of such force that it fractured Mr Holtz’s nose and caused bruising around his eyes, bleeding over the surface of his brain, and swelling and bleeding in the cerebro- spinal fluid spaces of the brain. These head injuries were considered non-treatable and Mr Holtz died the following day.

[9]                  This was a brutal attack fuelled by your consumption of alcohol and carried out despite the attempts of your friends to restrain you.

[10]              Mr Felise, you have a problem with alcohol. When you drink, you drink to the point that you become so intoxicated you no longer have full awareness of your actions. On this occasion, you were so drunk that the next day you could remember punching Mr Holtz but had no awareness that your punches had caused either serious injury or death.

Your circumstances

[11]              Mr Felise, you are 31 years old and identify with your Samoan heritage. You were raised in Otara by your parents and alongside your three siblings. Your family was tight knit and supportive. Your parents experienced financial hardship, requiring the family to move around frequently. You left school at 15 without gaining any formal qualifications.

[12]              You appear to have had a healthy and happy upbringing. You developed a strong work ethic. You started an apprenticeship in the building industry when you left school, and you have continued to be employed in that industry. You have almost completed your qualifications to be a certified builder.

[13]              You are currently married and have been with your wife for approximately four years. Between you, you have two sons from former relationships. It is apparent that you have worked hard to provide for your family, who in turn view you as loving, reliable and dependable. They have been enjoying having you with them.

[14]              You also have close supportive friends and family. I have read the letters that have been written by your wife, your friends, teachers and work colleagues that attest to your good character and your commitment to your family.

[15]              However, there are two aspects to your life that are much less positive. One is the use of violence. The other is the misuse of alcohol. It is the combination of those factors that led to the death of Eli Holtz and to your being here today.

[16]              There is evidence that from a young age your father administered physical punishment to you and your siblings. Whether or not this affected your development, it is apparent that you regard violence as an appropriate way of dealing with issues. This attitude was exacerbated by your gang affiliation which became central to your identity as a youth. You identified as a member of the Bloods gang from as young as

13. You say you have taken part in over 40 incidents of serious violence in a gang context.

[17]              That is truly appalling. It is sad for you. It’s that much sadder for people who have to deal with you. Your size and your proficiency with your fists may be your edge and protection, but they are weapons that are lethal when used against others who do not have your build.

[18]              You have been a binge drinker from an early age. On your own account, you used to be able to consume up to 60 pre-mixed drinks in a single extended session and

still be upright. That is not much to boast about when you consider the trouble you have caused to others and to yourself for drinking like that.

[19]              Alcohol got you into serious trouble in 2010. Then, when you were just 22 years of age, you and five others held up a liquor store because you had run out of drink and wanted more. One of you took a gun and an innocent man was killed. The man that pulled the trigger is still in prison and will be there for another eight years at least.

[20]              You were convicted for aggravated robbery after you had pleaded guilty. You were sentenced to six years imprisonment with a minimum term of three years.

[21]              At that time, you were, in your own words at sentencing, “drunk, young, stupid and not thinking straight”. Eight years later, it is apparent that you did not sustain the obvious lessons of that experience.

[22]              The psychiatric report prepared at the request of your counsel shows that after you were released from prison in 2014 you did make changes – desisting from crime and from associating with gangs. It also shows that you managed to go without drink for extended periods after you went through substance abuse treatment following your release from prison.

[23]              You appear to have gained some understanding of the effect drink has on you. You also found that you can do without it. But as time wore on, you went back to alcohol and the amounts you consumed steadily increased. By last January, you had gone back to drinking to excess but you found that your tolerance levels had reduced.

[24]              On the night you killed Mr Holtz, you say you had consumed between 10 and 15 shots of spirits and at least 24 bottles of pre-mixed “ready to drink” beverages, as well as several beers. You admit you were “extremely intoxicated” – 9 out of 10 on a scale from 0 to 10. Off your face drunk, only three years after being released from jail for offending associated with excessive drinking. That reflects an astonishing lack of insight and responsibility. Mr Holtz and his family are paying the price.

[25]              The pre-sentence report recommends imprisonment. It says you are at risk of re-offending unless and until you engage in the recommended alcohol programme and devise a treatment plan with a psychologist.

[26]              The report also notes that you presented with a sense of entitlement and minimised your own role in your past offending and recommends a sentence of imprisonment to ensure you are held accountable for your actions.

[27]              Your counsel takes issue with the comment about a sense of entitlement. From my own brief experience with you, however, it has some ring of truth. The disrespect you showed this Court, the Holtz family and your own family by being late when you came to court to plead guilty last November, was not the attitude of someone who had learned to take responsibility for his own actions.

[28]              I have read your letter of apology. I hope it is genuine. I treat it as such. But, Mr Felise, you have to learn to make better decisions before you mess up rather than apologising later for things you just should not have done.

Purposes and Principles of Sentencing

[29]              In sentencing you I am required to take into account the purposes and principles of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002. The relevant purposes include those of accountability, denunciation, responsibility and deterrence.3 I must hold you accountable for the harm caused by your offending to the victim and the community.4

[30]              It is also important that I denounce your behaviour. The fact that you were severely intoxicated at the time in no way justifies your violent response. Violence of any kind must be denounced and deterred, particularly where it is as senseless and as serious as in your case. I must also keep in mind that this sentence is intended to promote in you a sense of responsibility for the harm you have caused.

3     Sentencing Act 2002, ss 7(1)(a), (b) (e) and (f).

4     Sentencing Act 2002, ss 7(1)(a), (b) (e) and (f).

[31]              I must also take into account the gravity of the offending, including both your culpability and the seriousness of your offending,5 and the effect of the offending on Mr Holtz’s family.6

[32]              No penalty imposed by this Court can equate to the loss experienced by Eli’s family. You have heard the pain they have suffered as a result of Eli’s death. One life was lost but many more were damaged. It was hard to listen to. Just think how much more harder it was for them to have to suffer like that.

[33]              The sentence I impose should also be consistent with sentences imposed in similar factual circumstances.7 Crown counsel and your counsel have provided the Court with a number of authorities that have each been considered.

[34]              I must also impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances, in accordance with the hierarchy of sentences and orders set out in section 10A of the Sentencing Act.8

Submissions

[35]              I acknowledge the helpful submissions that have been filed by the Crown and by your counsel.

Crown Submissions

[36]              The Crown submits that I should set a starting point of eight years’ imprisonment, with a 10 per cent uplift to reflect your prior violent offending, a modest discount for personal mitigating factors, and a discount of no more than 10 per cent to reflect your guilty plea. T his would lead result in a sentence of seven and a half years’ imprisonment.

5      Sentencing Act 2002, ss 8(a) and (b).

6      Sentencing Act 2002, s 8(f).

7      Sentencing Act 2002, s 8(e).

8      Sentencing Act 2002, s 8(g)

Defendant’s Submissions

[37]              Your counsel submits that I should adopt a starting point of five years’ imprisonment, but she recognises that an uplift of four months may be added to reflect your prior offending. Your counsel further submits that mitigating factors could be taken into account but does not make submissions on by how much or as to final sentence.

Starting Point

[38]              My first task is to establish a starting point for your sentence. There is, as you have heard, no Court of Appeal decision that sets a standard sentence or tariff for manslaughter. That is because manslaughter can entail very wide-ranging circumstances with varying degrees of culpability.9

[39]              However, the Court of Appeal in R v Tai has held that in sentencing for manslaughter the Court may draw on R v Taueki, the guideline judgment for sentencing for offences involving grievous bodily harm, with an appropriate adjustment where there has been loss of life.10

[40]              The Court may also have regard to sentences for manslaughter in similar cases. It is recommended that both approaches be used, each as a check on the other. That is the approach I adopt.

Aggravating Factors of the Offending

[41]              In setting a starting point, the following are relevant aggravating features of your offending. First, the degree of violence involved was substantial. It may not be “extreme” in the Taueki sense but it was gratuitous, and, as I will discuss shortly, unprovoked. This was a brutal attack that involved multiple punches to the head, as

9      R v Edwardson HC Rotorua CRI-2006-069-1101, 27 April 2017. At [27] “The Court of Appeal has reiterated on numerous occasions that there is no set tariff range for manslaughter given the variable circumstances in which this offence may be committed and the varying degrees of culpability.”

10     R v Tai [2010] NZCA 598.

well as the breaking of a pellet gun on the body of the victim.11 You continued to deliver blows to the victim’s head after he became unconscious. You did not stop until you were pulled away by your associates.

[42]              A second feature was the seriousness of the injuries you inflicted.12 Mr Holtz suffered two cardiac arrests, severe head injuries and ultimately death, the most serious possible consequence of an assault.

[43]              A third feature was Mr Holtz’s vulnerability. Throughout the assault, Mr Holtz was restrained by a seatbelt and confined to the vehicle.13 He was much more vulnerable than you, as you stood outside the vehicle and carried out the assault. He became even more vulnerable as he lapsed into unconsciousness unable to defend himself from the continuing blows.

[44]              Lastly, your attack was largely directed at Mr Holtz’s head, one of the most vulnerable parts of the body, significantly increasing the risk that serious harm would result.

Mitigating Factors of the Offending

[45]              As the Crown submits, it is difficult to identify any mitigating factors relating to your offending.

[46]              Your counsel submits that the conduct of the victim is a relevant mitigating factor as Mr Holtz shot you with a water pellet gun, provoking you to retaliate with violence.14 I cannot accept that submission, just as I cannot accept any suggestion that your actions were intended to protect others.

[47]              I have viewed the video tape. It is clear that you never felt under threat or that you had been injured. The actions of Mr Holtz may have angered you. But your

11     Sentencing Act 2002, s 9(a).

12     Sentencing Act 2002, s 9(d).

13     Sentencing Act 2002, s 9(1)(g)

14     Sentencing Act 2002, s 9(2)(c)

sustained and violent response was unwarranted and disproportionate to Mr Holtz’s foolish prank. Provocation was not an operative cause of the violence.15

[48]              I do accept, however, that your actions were spontaneous and lacked any premeditation. You were drunk and not thinking straight.

[49]              Having regard to the above considerations, I agree with the Crown that your offending falls within the second of the three bands set out in Taueki – and at the upper end of Band two. It cannot come within Band one because the Court of Appeal has said that Band one is not appropriate for offences of life-threatening violence.16 The severity of the gratuitous and unprovoked attack, the attack on Mr Holtz’s  head,    Mr Holtz’s vulnerability and the seriousness of the injuries that resulted in death justify a starting point in the upper end of Band two of between 7 and 8 years’ imprisonment.

Comparable Cases

[50]              I agree this is not a ‘one punch’ manslaughter case. The so called ‘one punch’ cases typically involve a single punch where death results from a ruptured artery or the victim falling and hitting their head on the ground or another object. By contrast, your offending involved a sustained attack to the head, consisting of at least 6 punches.

I do not consider the one punch cases relevant to your sentence. 17

[51]              Your counsel also referred me to a number of other decisions to support her advocacy of a starting point of five years’ imprisonment. I have read them closely but I do not consider the facts of those cases too different from the circumstances of your offending to be of substantial assistance.18

15   R v Taueki [2005] 3 NZLR 372, at [32]. For provocation to be a relevant mitigating factor it must be an operative cause of the violent offending.

16     R v Taueki [2005] 3 NZLR 372, at [36].

17 Murray v R [2013] NZCA 177 and Kepu v R [2011] NZCA 104 were both ‘one punch’ cases where the victim died following a punch that caused them to fall and hit their head.

18  R v Raivaru HC Auckland CRI-2004-077-1667, 5 August 2005 involved a 15-year-old who  stabbed his stepfather following significant provocation. The current case lacks the level of provocation evident in Raivaru and involves a different mode of offending. Turi v R [2014] NZCA 254 involved a number of punches to the head and neck of the victim, however the victim later died of a heart attack brought about by the offending. The Court considered the offending to be relatively remote and indirect to the death of the victim. The current case involved a number of punches that directly lead to non-treatable brain injuries and death.

[52]              Counsel for the Crown has directed me to a number of relevant authorities involving circumstances similar to those of your offending.

[53]              The Court of Appeal in Te Pana v R confirmed that in circumstances involving an unprovoked attack to the head, a vulnerable victim and death, a starting point of between seven and eight years is appropriate.19 Although Te Pana took place in a domestic setting, the key features of the offending have significant similarities with the offending in this case. The offender was angered by the victim and reacted by delivering a number of punches to the head of the victim, who was in a more vulnerable position than the attacker.

[54]              Similar features were also evident in both R v Harrington20 and R v Edmonds21 with the Court in each case adopting a starting point between seven and eight years’ imprisonment.

[55]              My conclusion, therefore is that both the Taueki guidelines and the consideration of similar manslaughter sentences indicate that a starting point between seven and eight years’ imprisonment is appropriate. Given the circumstances of your offending – a drink-fuelled gratuitous attack on a young and vulnerable person – I adopt a starting point of eight years’ imprisonment.

Aggravating Factors relating to the Offender

[56]              The Crown submits that an uplift of 10 per cent is warranted to account for a history of violent offending. Your counsel accepts that an uplift of some degree is available. You have 11 prior convictions, including aggravated robbery, driving

19 Te Pana v R [2014] NZCA 55. Mr Te Pana was at a family gathering became angry at his stepfather. While his stepfather remained seated in a chair Mr Te Pana punched him several times in the head. The next morning his stepfather was found unconscious and he died a few days later. The Judge adopted a starting point of 8 years’ imprisonment.

20 R v Harrington [2017] NZHC 170. Mr Harrington was verbally abused by the victim, and responded by tackling the victim to the ground, holding him in a headlock and then later punching and kicking him in the head. The Judge adopted a starting point of 7 years’ imprisonment.

21   R v Edmonds [2015] NZHC 3254. Mr Edmonds discovered his girlfriend (Ms Knott) was also in a relationship with the victim and subsequently got into a confrontation with Ms Knott and the victim. Mr Edmonds pushed Ms Knott, and then began punching the victim in the head. The victim fell to the ground and Mr Edmonds continued to punch his face. The Judge adopted a starting point of 7 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.

convictions, wilful damage and various non-compliance offences. The most significant of these is your conviction for aggravated robbery.

I have already described the circumstances of that conviction.

[57]              That conviction and your assault on Mr Holtz indicate that you have a predilection to engage in violent offending when under the influence of alcohol and when in a group situation with your peers. This offending occurred 10 years ago and is your only other violent offence. However, the current offending occurred less than four years after your release from prison. I consider an uplift of 10 per cent or nine months is warranted.

Mitigating Factors relating to the Offender

Remorse

[58]              Remorse may be recognised as a mitigating factor where there is tangible evidence of genuine remorse.22 The Crown submits that the pre-sentence report indicates that you presented with an air of entitlement and that your remorse grew out of a greater concern for your own family, as opposed to the victim’s. As I have already observed, your behaviour when you came to enter a guilty plea for your current offending did you no credit.

[59]              On the other hand, as submitted by your counsel, the psychological assessment report provided by Dr Purcell suggests that you have continued to regret the attack on Mr Holtz and wished you could change what happened.23 You have also indicated a willingness to engage in restorative justice. As Mr Dickey has informed me this morning, you have confirmed your willingness for funds that may become available to you, depending on the NZ Police, can be made available to the family by way of recompense. Your own letter and those of your mother and your family and friends persuade me that you are remorseful and that some account should be taken of this. I consider a discount of four months to be appropriate.

22     R v Feleti [2019] NZHC 94, at [42].

23     Sentencing Act 2002, s 9(2)(f).

Intoxication and mental impairment

[60]              Your counsel submits that as a result of intoxication and mental impairment you exhibit reduced culpability for your offending.

[61]              A mental impairment may operate as a mitigating factor in two ways; first as a factor that moderates culpability24 and secondly as a factor that renders a sentence of imprisonment less appropriate or more subjectively punitive.25 In either circumstance the mental impairment must be causative of the offending.26

[62]              The psychological assessment report prepared by Dr Purcell finds that you meet the criteria for severe alcohol disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of various factors including a history of violent victimisation since childhood and various events that happened to you and your family since you were aged 14.

[63]In her report Dr Purcell states that:

“In his heavily intoxicated state, with an impaired capacity for decision making, self-control, judgment and effective behavioural responding, it appears that Mr Felise experienced a PTSD

exaggerated startle reflex in response to being shot, triggering an uncontrolled angry outburst response.”

[64]              Your ‘heavily intoxicated state’ cannot, under the Sentencing Act 2002, be considered a mitigating factor.27 Your diagnosis of PTSD may operate as a mitigating factor if it is causative of your offending.

[65]              In your psychological assessment you claimed that at the time of the incident you believed you had been shot with a real gun and were responding to prevent the

24 Sentencing Act 2002, section 8(a) requires the court to consider the degree of culpability of the offender. Section 9(2)(e) required the court to take into account that the offender has, or at the time of offending had diminished intellectual capacity or understanding.

25     Sentencing Act 2002, s 8(h).

26     R v M [2008] NZCA 148 at [33].

27     Section 9(3).

shooter from hurting anybody else. However, this claim and the role of PTSD in your offending are countered by the video recording of what took place and by the pre- sentence report where you told the interviewer that prior to your attack on Mr Holtz, your associates laughed when you told them you had been shot.

[66]              Although PTSD may have exaggerated your response, it appears more likely that your state of intoxication fuelled your violent attack on Mr Holtz. Accordingly, I do not consider find that PTSD was causative of your offending. It follows that this is not a factor capable of mitigating your sentence.

Period of EM bail

[67]              However, I do take account of the fact that you have spent six and a half months on Electronically Monitored bail without any incident, notwithstanding your late arrival in Court in November. The Crown submits that any discount warranted for compliance with EM bail conditions is neutralised by your prior non-compliance with community-based sentences.

[68]              While I recognise the point the Crown is making, I do not consider it is consistent with the Sentencing Act. The purpose of s 9(2)(h) is to acknowledge that the offender has already spent a period of time under restrictive conditions with their liberty curtailed.

[69]              There is no mathematical method for determining the equivalent time that should be deducted to reflect time spent on EM bail. I am required to have regard to all the relevant circumstances, including the time spent on bail, compliance with bail conditions and the extent to which liberty was constrained.28 You spent six and a half months on EM bail under restrictive conditions that required you to remain at the bail address 24 hours a day 7 days a week, and you did so without incident. A survey of cases containing equivalent bail conditions for a similar amount of time indicates that a deduction of around three months is appropriate 29.

28     Keown v R [2010] NZCA 492, at [7] and [12].

29 R v Hura [2018] NZHC 3347. The offender spent five months on restrictive EM bail conditions with a 24-hour curfew. Over that time there were two minor breaches. The Judge deducted two months to reflect the time on EM bail. Singh v R [2018] NZCA 388. The offender spent five

Family circumstances

[70]              In accordance with s 9(4) of the Sentencing Act, I am able to take into account any other mitigating factor that I think fit.

[71]              In sentencing you, I am acutely aware that you are the father of two young boys who need their father in their lives, just as your wife needs you to be with her in bringing up your children. Sadly, there will be a further period of lengthy separation because of your offending.

[72]              I consider I should make a further reduction of 4 months to your sentence to take account of your family circumstances.

[73]              I am aware that making allowance for your family circumstances may upset the Holtz family who will be very conscious that nothing of that kind can be done for their son. I ask them to remember that this discount is in the interests of Mr Felise’s young children who bear no responsibility for the actions of their father.

Guilty plea

[74]              It is accepted that you should receive credit for your guilty plea. A guilty plea was entered two weeks before your trial was set down to start. That was late, and later than it needed to be, notwithstanding the delays in receiving the pathologist’s report.

[75]              The case against you was very strong. The whole incident was captured on CCTV. Your chances of defending the charge against you were remote. Yet you delayed pleading until two weeks before the scheduled commencement of your trial.

[76]              Your guilty plea did prevent a number of witnesses from having to give evidence, and it stopped Mr Holtz’s friends and family from having to relive the traumatic events throughout the trial.

months subject to EM bail with a 24-hour curfew. The Court on appeal held that a deduction of three months was appropriate. R v Rose [2017] NZHC 148. The offender spent eight months on EM bail with a 24-hour curfew. The Judge awarded a deduction of six months.

[77]              Your counsel submits a deduction of between 18 and 20 per cent is appropriate. I consider that more than a little optimistic and at odds with the reality of your situation. Given the lateness of the plea and the strength of the Crown case, I consider a discount of 10 per cent is appropriate.

[78]That results in a total sentence of seven years’ imprisonment.

Minimum Period of Imprisonment

[79]              The Crown submits that a minimum period of imprisonment of 50 per cent is appropriate in order to reflect your history of violent offending, and that you have not yet addressed the causes of your offending. The enforcement of a minimum period of imprisonment is said to be necessary to protect the public and to give effect to the purposes of deterrence, denunciation and accountability.

[80]              I may impose a minimum period of imprisonment beyond the prescribed amount where I am satisfied that it is necessary to hold the offender accountable for the harm done, denounce the conduct of the offender, deter the offender or protect the community.30

[81]              I am satisfied that each of these factors is engaged in this case and that a minimum period of imprisonment of 50 per cent is appropriate.

[82]              No sentence will ever seem right to those who have lost a loved one to senseless violence. I ask the Holtz family to understand that this is the sentence mandated by law and to accept it as society’s best effort to do justice in what is for you a terribly unjust situation.

[83]              To you Mr Felise, I give the assurance that I have not approached your sentencing as if you are a monster as you say you have been portrayed. I see you as a young man who has made some very bad choices under the influence of alcohol. Those choices have had terrible consequences for others, as well as for yourself and your family, including your sons.

30     Sentencing Act 2002, s 86(2).

[84]              Last time, you did not learn from your experience. This time you better. But you will only learn that lesson if you own the problem and make it your mission to change your ways so you and others can be safe.

[85]Mr Felise, please stand now.

[86]              Mr Felise, on the charge of manslaughter you are sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years, with a minimum period of imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months.

G J van Bohemen J