Legal Research
Cases
R v Gebhardt

R v Gebhardt

Case [2022] NZHC 1899 3 August 2022

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2019-009-011852

[2022] NZHC 1899

THE QUEEN

v

NIKLAS GEBHARDT

Hearing: 3 August 2022

Appearances:

M N Zarifeh and A M Harvey for the Crown

A M McCormick and D J Curnow for the Defendant

Judgment:

3 August 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF DOOGUE J

Introduction

[1] Mr Gebhardt, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to the motor manslaughter of your son, Lachlan.1

Facts

[2] You and your ex-partner, Lachlan’s mother, Ms Manson, shared custody of Lachlan. After you separated you both negotiated an agreement, with Lachlan spending half of the week with you and half with Ms Manson.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 150A, 160(2)(c), 171 and 177 – maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

R v GEBHARDT [2022] NZHC 1899 [3 August 2022]

[3] On the morning of 5 November 2019, you sent a text message to Ms Manson, who was supposed to have custody of Lachlan that day, asking if you could pick Lachlan up. Ms Manson agreed, and an arrangement was made for you to pick Lachlan up at about 4.00 pm from the Dudley Swimming Pool Complex in Rangiora.

[4] You arrived at the pool complex at about 3.46 pm. You collected Lachlan and at about 4.08 pm you and Lachlan left in your Mazda motor vehicle. Lachlan was sitting in the rear of the vehicle. The vehicle was registered and had a current warrant of fitness.

[5] You drove out of Rangiora into Lehmans Road, travelling in a northerly direction. You knew that stretch of road very well, having travelled along it many times before. As you drove along Lehmans Road you began to accelerate, driving in excess of the posted speed limit of 80 km/h.2 Approximately one kilometre prior to the end of Lehmans Road you overtook another vehicle in your lane. You swerved sharply back into your lane to avoid a collision with an oncoming vehicle.

[6] You continued to drive at high speeds towards the end of Lehmans Road to the right turn where it intersects at a sharp right-hand bend into River Road. This intersection has an advisory speed limit of 25 km/h. To the west of the intersection is an unsealed stop bank road which runs parallel to River Road and perpendicular to Lehmans Road. Beyond the stop bank is a forested area with well-established trees.

[7] You approached the intersection without braking or slowing the vehicle down, or attempting to swerve or take the corner. You continued driving in a straight line off the sealed road and onto the grass. You struck the bottom left-hand corner of the speed sign with the right side of the vehicle. Your vehicle continued up the rise towards the stop bank, which caused the vehicle to vault and become airborne. Preliminary results from the Police Serious Crash Unit show your vehicle travelled approximately 24 metres through the air before it impacted with a tree, seven metres higher…

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 Gebhardt

Details

AGLC: R v Gebhardt [2022] NZHC 1899
Case: [2022] NZHC 1899
Decision Date: 3 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Mr. Niklas Gebhardt faced sentencing for the motor manslaughter of his son, Lachlan. Mr. Gebhardt had driven recklessly, resulting in a fatal crash. The court needed to determine an appropriate sentence, considering both the culpability of the offense and personal mitigating factors. The legal issues centered around setting an appropriate starting point for the sentence, assessing aggravating and mitigating factors, and determining the discount for the guilty plea, psychological and physical injuries, and previous good character.

The court concluded that Mr. Gebhardt's driving was highly reckless and deliberate, warranting a starting point of seven years and six months imprisonment. Aggravating factors included excessive speed, aggressive driving, and a lack of any mitigating circumstances such as impairment or external distractions. Personal mitigating factors considered included the guilty plea, psychological and physical injuries, and previous good character. The court granted a 20% discount for the guilty plea, 10% for psychological and physical injuries, and 5% for good character, resulting in a total discount of 35%. Therefore, the final sentence was five years imprisonment, along with a seven-year disqualification from driving following release from prison.

Orders