R v Jones - [2018] NZHC 984

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2016-019-007230

[2018] NZHC 984

THE QUEEN

v

STEPHEN JOHN JONES

Hearing: 3 May 2018

Appearances:

D McWilliam for the Crown R Boot for the Defendant

Sentence:

3 May 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF HINTON J

Counsel/Solicitors:
Philip Morgan QC, Hamilton Gavin Boot Law, Hamilton Almao Douch, Hamilton

R v STEPHEN JOHN JONES [2018] NZHC 984 [3 May 2018]

Introduction

[1] Mr Stephen Jones, you appear for sentencing today having been found guilty at trial of offences of wilfully attempting to prevent the course of justice, and failing to stop after an accident. For the second offence, you were found guilty as a party to the offending of Mr Dylan Cossey.

[2] The maximum penalty under s 117(e) of the Crimes Act 1961, for wilfully attempting to prevent the course of justice, is seven years’ imprisonment.

[3] The maximum penalty under s 36(1)(c) of the Land Transport Act 1998, for failing to stop after an accident, is five years’ imprisonment, and mandatory disqualification from driving for a period of at least one year.

Facts

[4] I set out the facts relevant to the terrible accident that occurred on 24 June 2016 when I sentenced Mr Cossey. I set those out only briefly now. I want to make it clear at the outset that you were acquitted by the jury of any involvement in that accident. I am sentencing you for offences that followed the accident ˗˗ failing to stop and attempting to prevent the course of justice.

[5] On the evening of 24 June 2016, your co-defendant, Mr Cossey was driving his Honda Integra north on Ohaupo Road towards Te Awamutu. You were seated alongside him in the front passenger seat. In the rear of the vehicle was another person.

[6] Somewhere after Te Awamutu, the vehicle in which the three of you were travelling, met up with the Nissan Skyline being driven by Mr Lance Robinson.

[7]Mr Cossey and Mr Robinson raced one another for about nine minutes.

[8]You recorded part of that race on your iPhone.

[9] While Mr Robinson and Mr Cossey raced north along Ohaupo Road, a Toyota Hiace, driven by Mr Matthew Scheepers was travelling south along the same stretch of highway.

[10] The Skyline driven by Mr Robinson overtook the Honda, lost control and collided with the Toyota Hiace.

[11]The four occupants in the Nissan Skyline were killed in the collision.

[12]Mr Matthew Scheepers, in the Toyota Hiace, was seriously injured.

[13] Mr Cossey pulled up alongside the Nissan Skyline and initially slowed his vehicle. At this point, Mr Jones, you said “Gap it, bro. Gap it”. Mr Cossey then accelerated away from the scene.

[14] On 27 June 2016, the Police organised to speak with both you and Mr Cossey. You met with the Police the next day on 28 June. You provided Police with an 11-second video of the incident. You then provided Police with a 13-second…

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 Jones

Details

AGLC: R v Jones [2018] NZHC 984
Case: [2018] NZHC 984
Decision Date: 3 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Stephen John Jones was convicted of wilfully attempting to prevent the course of justice and failing to stop after an accident. The latter offence was committed as a party to the offending of Mr Dylan Cossey. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Jones, considering the nature and gravity of the offences, his culpability, and mitigating factors.

The legal issues included determining the appropriate starting points for each offence, taking into account the gravity of the offending, the culpability of the offender, and the purposes and principles of sentencing. The court also had to consider whether a cumulative or concurrent sentence was appropriate, as well as the potential for home detention as an alternative to imprisonment.

The court determined that a cumulative sentence was appropriate for these offences, as they were different in kind and not a connected series. The starting points for each offence were 18 months and 15 months imprisonment, respectively. The court then considered mitigating factors such as Jones' age, previous good character, and remorse. The court granted a reduction of approximately 40% to each starting point, resulting in end sentences of 11 months and nine months imprisonment. The court further reduced these sentences by two months each to ensure the total sentence was not disproportionate to the gravity of the offences. The final sentence was a cumulative sentence of 16 months imprisonment, which was commuted to eight months of home detention.

Final orders:
1. Jones is sentenced to four-and-a-half months' home detention for the offence of wilfully attempting to prevent the course of justice.
2. Jones is sentenced to three-and-a-half months' home detention for the offence of failing to stop after an accident.
3. The sentences are to be served cumulatively, resulting in a total period of home detention of eight months.
4. Jones is disqualified from driving for a period of one year, pursuant to s 36(2)(b) of the Land Transport Act 1998.

Orders