[3] The charge of manslaughter carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.1 The driving charges each carry a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $6,000.2

[4] My sentence will be in six parts:

(a) First, I must re-tell the facts of your offending;

(b) Second, I will describe your personal circumstances; (c) Third, I will refer to the victim impact statements;
(d)Fourth, I will describe the legal frame, principles and purposes of sentencing;

(e) Fifth, I will set out the reasons for the sentence I will impose on you;

and

(f) Sixth, I will deliver my sentence.

[5] Before proceeding further, however, I want to acknowledge Ilya’s family and

friends. I wish to express my personal sympathy for your loss and I know that

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 177.
2 Land Transport Act 1998, ss 32 and 56.

recounting the facts will be distressing for you. There will be times during my sentencing where you may feel that the emphasis is on the defendant, Mr Green. But please note that I am mindful throughout of your great loss.

Facts

[6] Mr Green, on 2 February 2015 you had a day off work and decided to link up with a friend Paul Butler at your brother’s house at about 4.30 pm. Mr Butler arrived in his Subaru B4 motor vehicle. You had a couple of drinks and then decided to go to another work colleague’s house in Gate Pa. His name is Charlie Aranui.

[7] When you caught up with Mr Aranui, he decided that he would be the sober driver and you together drove in convoy to Mr Butler’s house to drop Mr Aranui’s car off there and continued to Mt Maunganui in the Subaru. Mr Aranui was driving.

[8] On the way back over to Mt Maunganui you stopped at a liquor store in

Tauranga City and bought some beers and Woodstock bourbon and colas to drink.

[9] Having stocked up on drinks, the three of you went to Pilot Bay at the Mount. Mr Aranui was driving the Subaru while you and Mr Butler drank your alcohol. From there the three of you drove around the Mount for a bit longer before going to the pub.

[10] At the pub you drank some beer and played pool.

[11] From the pub you went to the Bayfair shopping mall to buy some…

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 Green

Details

AGLC: R v Green [2016] NZHC 513
Case: [2016] NZHC 513
Decision Date: 23 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Tauranga Registry, the case of R v Green was heard and determined on 23 March 2016. The defendant, Raymond Green, pleaded guilty to charges of manslaughter, driving while disqualified (third or subsequent offence), and refusing an officer's request for a blood specimen (third or subsequent offence). The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for these offences.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was the appropriate sentencing for the defendant's actions, which resulted in the death of Ilya Kojevnikov. The court had to consider the aggravating factors of the case, including the consumption of alcohol, grossly excessive speed, deliberately reckless driving, and the defendant's failure to stop after the collision. Additionally, the court had to weigh mitigating factors such as the defendant's remorse, his willingness to pay reparation, and his early guilty plea.

The court began its reasoning by recounting the facts of the case, highlighting the defendant's reckless driving and his decision to flee the scene without offering assistance. The court then examined the legal principles and purposes of sentencing, emphasizing the need to denounce the offending, hold the defendant accountable, and protect the public. The court considered the defendant's personal circumstances, including his lengthy history of driving-related offences and his family support.

After examining the aggravating and mitigating factors, the court determined a starting point of six years and six months for the manslaughter charge. The court added an 18-month uplift for the defendant's prior conduct and disqualified driving, and applied a 15% discount for mitigating factors such as remorse and the guilty plea. The court also imposed concurrent sentences of 12 months for the driving while disqualified and blood specimen refusal charges, and a seven-year disqualification from holding a driver's licence. Finally, the court imposed a minimum non-parole period of 50% of the manslaughter sentence.

In conclusion, the court sentenced the defendant to six years and eight months imprisonment for manslaughter, with a seven-year disqualification from holding a driver's licence and a minimum non-parole period of 50% of the sentence. The sentences for the driving while disqualified and blood specimen refusal charges were to be served concurrently with the manslaughter sentence.

Orders