Legal Research
Cases
R v Holdem

R v Holdem

Case [2018] NZHC 1739 13 July 2018

Manslaughter

Reckless Driving Causing Injury

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND BLENHEIM REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WAIHARAKEKE ROHE

CRI-2017-006-601

[2018] NZHC 1739

THE QUEEN

v

STEWART DOUGLAS EDWARD HOLDEM

Hearing: 12 July 2018

Appearances:

J M Webber for the Crown

A J D Bamford and E J Riddell for the Defence

Judgment:

13 July 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF CULL J

[1] Mr Holdem, following guilty verdicts and conviction at trial, you appear for sentence today in relation to three charges:

(a)one charge of manslaughter;1 and

(b)two charges of reckless driving causing injury.2

[2]In sentencing you today I am going to explain:

(a)your offending;

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 156, 160(2)(b), 171 and 177.
2 Land Transport Act 1998, s 36(1)(a).

R v HOLDEM [2018] NZHC 1739 [13 July 2018]

(b)your personal circumstances;

(c)the appropriate sentencing purposes and principles I must consider;

(d)the starting point I have adopted and why;

(e)the adjustments I have made to the starting point to reflect your personal circumstances; and

(f)your final sentence.

Your offending

[3] So I will start with your offending. Now, your offending arose out of a fatal vehicle crash on State Highway 6, near Blenheim, on 24 March 2017. At the time, you held a restricted driver’s licence, which includes the conditions not to drive after 10 pm at night and not to carry passengers unless there is a qualified supervisor in the front passenger seat.

[4] Over the 24 hours preceding the crash, you had been smoking methamphetamine. You had taken cannabis and you had drunk alcohol. You had also taken tramadol medication on the day of the crash, which had been prescribed to you for an existing injury. You were previously advised to limit alcohol when taking tramadol. You knew that ingesting substances could impair your driving.

[5] On the morning of 24 March 2017, having been out the night before drinking and smoking methamphetamine, you got up early. You consumed alcohol in the morning, before picking up Ms Dyson and her friend, whom you drove to her address, and you and Ms Dyson decided to drive to Nelson. On the way from Blenheim to Nelson, you and Ms Dyson smoked methamphetamine twice from a $200 bag of methamphetamine, which you had previously purchased. After purchasing a supply of alcohol from a liquor store in Nelson, you went to Ms Dyson’s friend’s house in Richmond, where the friend, Ms McGuckin, and her partner, Dylan Sutton – the deceased – lived. Everyone was drinking and you consumed some premix alcoholic drinks.

[6] A decision was made, and on the evidence before me it appears that this was Ms Dyson and Ms McGuckin made the decision that they travel back to Blenheim and you drove the three, Mr Sutton, Ms McGuckin and Ms Dyson, from Nelson to Blenheim. Before leaving Nelson, you drove to another liquor store in Richmond, where you purchased more alcohol for the four of you to share.

[7] You left for Blenheim around 8.30 pm approximately with you…

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 Holdem

Details

AGLC: R v Holdem [2018] NZHC 1739
Case: [2018] NZHC 1739
Decision Date: 13 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Blenheim Registry, the defendant, Stewart Douglas Edward Holdem, was sentenced for three charges: manslaughter and two counts of reckless driving causing injury. The case was heard on 12 July 2018, with judgment delivered on 13 July 2018. The defendant was found guilty following a trial and now faced sentencing. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, the defendant's personal circumstances, and relevant sentencing principles and purposes.

The primary legal issues included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, assessing aggravating and mitigating factors, and deciding on the final sentence, including any concurrent or consecutive terms and any additional penalties such as disqualification from driving. The court had to balance the defendant's culpability against his demonstrated remorse and willingness to address his substance abuse issues. The court also had to consider the impact of the defendant's actions on the victims and their families.

The court found that the defendant's consumption of drugs and alcohol, excessive speed, disregard for passenger warnings, and driving while on a restricted licence were significant aggravating factors. The defendant's genuine remorse, expressed through multiple channels, and his willingness to address his substance abuse and mental health issues were considered mitigating factors. The court determined a starting point of six years for the manslaughter charge and applied a six-month discount for the mitigating factors, resulting in a final sentence of five years and six months' imprisonment. The two counts of reckless driving causing injury were to be served concurrently with the manslaughter sentence. Additionally, the defendant was disqualified from holding a driver's licence for five years post-release and ordered to pay reparation for damages to the vineyard and analyst fees. The court encouraged the defendant to make voluntary reparation payments to the victims when financially able.

Orders