R v Hapi

[2025] NZHC 1160

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2024-054-2494

[2025] NZHC 1160

THE KING

v

JOSHUA WHAKETAKI HAPI

Hearing:	13 May 2025
Counsel:	B D Vanderkolk and G M Stone for Crown L Scott for Defendant
Sentence:	13 May 2025

SENTENCING NOTES OF ISAC J

[1]                 I want to begin again by acknowledging James. He was only 49 years old when he passed away. He was a tuakana; a man of great mana; a good man who loved his whānau and cared for them. His family say he was their pou; a man who lived humbly, gave selflessly and deserved more.

[2]                 Thank you to those who spoke today. You spoke with great dignity and I could see how difficult it was for you. I am grateful for your words. I think I have a better understanding of the man who James was.

R v HAPI [2025] NZHC 1160 [13 May 2025]

[3]                 Mr Hapi, you appear here for sentence having pleaded guilty to two charges of driving with excess blood alcohol causing injury,1 and one charge of driving with excess blood alcohol causing death.2

The offending

[4]                 In 2023 you were charged with unrelated offending. You were released on bail and one of the conditions was that you were not to consume alcohol. Despite this, on the 23rd of May 2024, only 16 days before the offending for which you appear today for sentence, you were stopped by Police while driving. You were found with a breath alcohol level of 391 micrograms per litre of breath. That’s only nine micrograms below the legal limit for a criminal charge.

[5]                 On 8 June, that year, 2024 you drove to a housewarming party in Palmerston North arriving in the mid-afternoon You consumed alcohol to the extent that partygoers observed you as being significantly affected. This was a further breach of your bail conditions.

[6]                 Six hours after your arrival at the party, at about 9.30pm, you got into your car and left the address, travelling towards Ashurst. On a 500 metre stretch you drove at speeds between 142 and 157 km/h. This area was three-and-a-half kilometres from the crash site, and Police estimate that your  average  speed  over  this  distance  was  140 km/h. The area in question was marked as a 100 km/h zone.

[7]                 While driving you were receiving calls and text messages some of which were encouraging you to return to the party. At some point you made a U-turn to travel back to Palmerston North. While stationary during the turn you switched your phone to silent.

[8]                 Mr Haddon was driving a Holden Rodeo ute in an easterly direction towards Palmerston North. He was driving to work.

1      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 61(1)(b) and 61(3AA).

2      Land Transport Act, ss 61(1)(b) and 61(3).

[9]                 About 18 seconds after you turned your phone to silent you collided into the rear of Mr Haddon’s vehicle. He was travelling in the same direction. You struck his ute with such force that it caused his vehicle to slide sideways across the centre line, roll over and land on its roof in a drain on the wrong side of the road. Mr Haddon died as a result of his injuries.

[10]       It is clear you were travelling well in excess of the speed limit at the point of impact. While it has not been possible to calculate the precise speed, a witness described you as travelling “extremely fast”. This is consistent with the speed you were driving before  you  made  the  U-turn.  Given  you  drove  into  the  rear  of  Mr Haddon’s vehicle I think it is very likely you were looking at your phone. I do not take it into account as an aggravating fact, but it seems the only plausible reason why you managed to drive at such great speed into the rear of a vehicle travelling the same way as you.

[11]              After the collision your vehicle continued towards Palmerston North. You crossed the centre line where you side swiped another vehicle with three occupants. The impact deployed the car’s airbags and the front passenger, a Mr Fyfe, had his feet on the dashboard. The airbag forced his feet into the windscreen injuring his ankle.

[12]              After the second collision your vehicle had sufficient momentum to collide with a third vehicle head-on. The collision caused the oncoming vehicle to roll over, coming to a rest on its roof. At the time of impact you were still travelling at a speed of between 108 and 110 km/h. This gives us some idea of the speed you must have been travelling when you hit Mr Haddon’s vehicle. The occupant of the third vehicle, your third victim, managed to get out through a rear door. She was concussed and had other injuries consistent with a high-speed crash. And you’ve heard today how your actions have affected her and her family.

[13]Across the three collisions your vehicle travelled over 250 metres.

[14]              Now analysis of your blood found that it contained 168 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. That level is over double the limit for criminal

responsibility and over four times the maximum level a person is allowed to drive with. You were also under the influence of cannabis.

[15]              The consequences of your offending could not be more profound. Mr Haddon lost his life. And you have heard what that has meant for his wife, his six children, his brothers, sisters, his mother and his father. They continue to grieve for the loss of a young man who should have had many more years more with his whānau.

[16]              You too were badly injured. There is limited information about whether your injuries will be permanent, but I am aware that you spent five weeks in hospital after the crash and continue to suffer from pain and limited mobility.

Personal circumstances

[17]              At the time of the offending you were 25 years old. You are now 26. You had been living with your mother and father, and you have a close relationship with your older brother. Your mother describes you as a good person, kind-hearted, and someone very involved in the lives of your family. It is clear that your family are good people who provided you with love and support while you were growing up. You were a capable student before you left school and an age grade representative softball player and a fine athlete. I have read a number of character references that all speak to a sensitive and respectful young man with genuine promise. The references indicate something has gone wrong for you in your late teens and early adulthood.

[18]              While you are currently  unemployed you  worked as  a house cleaner for  five years and had been employed as a labourer. Before the offending you were looking to move into a plumbing apprenticeship but drug use caused issues with your work and you had to leave that job.

[19]              Mr Hapi, you accept that drugs and alcohol have blighted your life. It has now done the same to your victims. You began using methamphetamine in 2023 but you say you had stopped several months before the current offending. However, you continued to consume alcohol and cannabis routinely. You also have previous convictions for careless driving and driving with excess breath alcohol from June 2017. So it seems that drinking and driving has been something of a pattern for you.

[20]              I have also read reports by an alcohol and drug assessor and a psychologist. These indicate that you have serious addiction issues with alcohol, methamphetamine and cannabis. They also indicate that you have suffered from anxiety and depression for years, and your drug and alcohol use was likely a coping mechanism for what was going on in your head. You are described as a sensitive and reserved person with a strong sense of justice. And it is clear you understand the harm that your addiction has caused and that you wish to take responsibility for it.

[21]              All indications are that if you overcome your mental health difficulties and issues with substance abuse you are someone who is capable of making a positive contribution to your family and community.

Starting point

[22]Now I begin by identifying the aggravating features of your offending:

(a)First, your level of intoxication. You were twice the legal limit to drive. Yours was a very high reading;

(b)Second, your grossly excessive speed and a sustained period of dangerous driving on a busy piece of road. As I’ve said you were travelling between 142 and 157 km/h not long before the collision with Mr Haddon’s vehicle. You were still travelling over 100 km/h by the time you hit the third car;

(c)Next, there is the impact of your offending. One person lost their life, you injured two other people. It is miraculous that others, including yourself, were not killed;

(d)Finally, at the time of your offending you were on bail, with a condition that required you not to consume alcohol.3 You were also arrested for breaching bail in a similar manner – with excess breath alcohol just

3      This is an aggravating factor under s 9(c) of the Sentencing Act 2002.

16 days earlier. As I say this indicates it is unlikely your drink driving on this occasion was a one-off.

[23]              These aggravating factors are mostly encompassed as elements of the charges you have pleaded guilty to. For that reason I am going to fix a global starting point for all three offences. That approach is consistent with what other judges have done in similar cases.4

[24]              The Crown and your lawyer have referred me to a number of previous decisions. The Crown submits a global starting point of four years’ imprisonment is warranted before an uplift of six months for your previous convictions. Your counsel, Ms Scott, submits also that four and a half years is the appropriate figure.

[25]              I am mindful the Court of Appeal has cautioned against trying to find a case where the relative seriousness is exactly the same, given so much depends on the particular circumstances of the offending in each case.5 However, having considered the authorities referred to by counsel, a starting point of four years would fail to adequately reflect the gravity of your offending. Cases with starting points that low in my view are clearly less serious than yours.6

[26]              In R v McClutchie the offender was driving with significant blood alcohol content, travelling at high speeds and ignored passengers pleading with him to stop.7 A five year starting point was adopted on the same charge in that case. While in your case, Mr Hapi, the latter element —passengers intervening and asking a driver to stop

— is missing, aspects of your offending are in my view more serious:

(a)your level of blood alcohol was substantially higher;

(b)you also had THC in your system;

4      R v Presland [2015] NZHC 1203, R v Hyde [2013] NZHC 2586, R v Guest [2013] NZHC 2432,

R v Pora [2015] NZHC 1104, R v Thomas [2018] NZHC 819, R v Boyce [2023] NZHC 3508.

5      Gacitua v R [2013] NZCA 234 at [22].

6      Paparoa v Police [2023] NZHC 2978; Lewis v R [2023] NZHC 2978; Leaupepe v R [2016] NZCA 228.

7      R v McClutchie [2013] NZHC 1988.

(c)you appear to have driven faster; and

(d)in McClutchie the defendant was driving after 11pm on a rural road with no street lighting and some parts of the road were unsealed. You were driving at 9.30pm on one of the main arterial roads into the City of Palmerston North, approaching a residential built up area at dangerous speeds. The risk to the public in your case was therefore much greater;

(e)further, while the victims in McClutchie made the choice to get in the car with a drunk driver, your victims were oblivious to the risk that you posed to them and had no ability to avoid it.

[27]              It is the level of your risk-taking on a busy road that makes your offending so serious. I am satisfied that a starting point of five years’ imprisonment is appropriate in the circumstances, including causing injuries to occupants of two additional vehicles in addition to Mr Haddon’s death.

[28]              I have also cross-checked my assessment against sentences imposed for similar offending where a charge of manslaughter has been proffered.8 Having done so I am satisfied the starting point of five years’ imprisonment for your driving Mr Hapi is within range.

Personal aggravating and mitigating factors

[29]I turn then to consider personal aggravating and mitigating factors.

Guilty plea

[30]              You pleaded guilty at an early stage of the proceeding. A reduction to the starting point is called for. And both counsel accept that. However, the extent of any discount remains a matter for the Court’s assessment and I have to have regard to the circumstances.9  The case against you was overwhelming. And your guilty plea came

8      R v Solo HC New Plymouth CRI-2004-043-3158; R v Ormsby [2013] NZHC 1873; R v Holdem

[2018] NZHC 1789.

9       Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135, [2011] 1 NZLR 607.

after an amendment of the lead charge of manslaughter. You have received a benefit already in pleading guilty to the reduced charge, and to give full credit for an early plea would fail to properly reflect the gravity of your offending.10 A reduction of 20 per cent is therefore appropriate.

Youth

[31]              At the time of the offending you were 25 years of age. The Court has recognised that because of neurological differences between young people and adults youth is relevant to sentencing.11 At 25, Mr Hapi, you are at the upper limit of where the Court has previously provided a reduction for youth.

[32]              You chose to drove that night knowing you were intoxicated. And you had done the same on at least two previous occasions, one being just 16 days before the current offending. A modest discount of five per cent is all that is warranted, but I am prepared to grant it given specialist information suggesting that your chronic use of cannabis since you were a teenager may have affected your maturation and brain development.

Mental health and addiction

[33]              As I have said you have suffered from depression and anxiety for years. I have also read that you are currently in remission from serious alcohol and methamphetamine addiction. I recognise that your struggles with mental health and substance abuse have had a significant impact on the trajectory of your life. However, in the circumstances of the current charges it is not appropriate to provide a discrete reduction to reflect these factors. Most people who choose to drive with excess blood alcohol at the levels you had will have some level of addiction to alcohol. It would not be appropriate to reduce a sentence that would otherwise be fitting where abuse of an intoxicating substance is itself an essential element of the offence.

10 At [62].

11     Churchward v R [2011] NZCA 531; Rolleston & Roche [2018] NZCA 611.

Rehabilitative prospects

[34]              In saying that, I am going to give you credit for your rehabilitative prospects. You are a young man with a loving and supportive mother, father and brother. Despite struggles with addiction, you have said that you no longer drink alcohol or consume methamphetamine. These are significant steps that you have taken. You now owe it to Mr Haddon and his family given the opportunity that you have but he does not to do something positive with the rest of your life. With your family’s support I believe you can do that. A reduction of 10 per cent is appropriate.

Reparation and remorse

[35]              I have also read the letter of apology that you prepared for Mr Haddon’s family. And I have read reports from your family and a counsellor, that all say that your grief and remorse are palpable. You have in fact asked me today not to sentence you to home detention because you feel that imprisonment is required to recognise the harm you have caused. You also have agreed  to  make  a  reparation  payment  of  $5000  to Mr Haddon’s family, for their financial loss saying that you know this will not begin to make up for James’ loss and you are right about that. But recognition of your remorse and efforts  to make amends should be recognised. A further reduction of  10 per cent is therefore appropriate.

Credit for time on EM bail

[36]              Your counsel also argues that time on EM bail should also be taken into account, and that a reduction of one months’ imprisonment is needed to reflect it.

[37]              For the reasons advanced by Mr Vanderkolk I do not consider that its appropriate to do that in the present case. Your injuries have meant that your confinement to some extent was inevitable.

Previous convictions

[38]              Now applying the reductions I’ve identified for mitigating factors to the starting point would result in an end sentence of 33 months’ imprisonment.

[39]              However, as I have noted you were convicted some years ago of driving with excess breath alcohol. The level was moderately high. And given the escalation of your substance use and its consequences, an uplift is necessary. In doing that I am conscious of the time since your previous conviction and the need to ensure that you are not effectively punished twice for your earlier offending. An uplift of three months is therefore appropriate.

[40]              This results in an end sentence of three years’ imprisonment. To your credit, as I have said, you haven’t sought a non-custodial sentence even if that had been an option.

Other orders sought

[41]              Finally, because you have been convicted of driving with excess blood alcohol causing death you must be subject to a period of disqualification from driving for at least one year.12

[42]              The primary objective of that disqualification is public safety. And here, the fact of your high blood alcohol content, your speed, and previous history mean that a disqualification period of five years commencing today is appropriate and consistent with other cases.13

Conclusion and result

[43]Thank you. Would you please stand now Mr Hapi.

[44]              On the charge of driving with excess breath alcohol causing death you are sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.

12 Land Transport Act 1998, s 61(3AA)(b). The offences are also qualifying offences pursuant to s 65AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Land Transport Act. Mr Hapi will therefore be subject to an alcohol interlock license following the end of the disqualification period imposed.

13 Leaupepe v R [2016] NZCA 228 at [16], citing R v Presland [2015] NZHC 1203; R v McClutchie

[2013] NZHC 1988.

[45]              On the charges of driving with excess breath alcohol causing injury you are sentenced to three-months’ imprisonment. Those sentences are concurrent. The overall sentence of imprisonment is therefore one of three years.

[46]              You are also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for five years from today.

[47]I make orders for payment of reparation to Mr Haddon’s family in the sum of

$5,000 (which should be paid today), together with payments of $1,000 to each of the other victims. Those sums are to be paid within the next 28 days.

[48]Given your sentence of imprisonment I make no further orders for reparation.

[49]Thank you Mr Hapi please stand down.

Isac J