Legal Research
Cases
R v Kimber

R v Kimber

Case [2025] NZHC 1906 11 July 2025

Disadvantaged Background

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2023-070-001646

[2025] NZHC 1906

THE KING

v

MARK GREGORY KIMBER

Hearing: 11 July 2025

Appearances:

I R Murray and C E J Houia for Crown R M Mansfield KC for Defendant

Sentencing notes:

11 July 2025

SENTENCING NOTES OF GWYN J

Introduction

[1] Mark Gregory Kimber, you were convicted by a jury of two charges of manslaughter.1 You now appear for sentence.

[2]The charge of manslaughter carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.2

[3] Sentencing for manslaughter is difficult. You did not intend the outcome, but it occurred because of your dangerous actions. The sentence is not meant to in any way make up for the deaths of Geoffrey and Karen Boucher. It cannot do that. It must,

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 150A, 156, 160(2)(a) and 171; and Land Transport Act 1998, ss 7 and 8.
2 Crimes Act, s 177.

R v KIMBER [2025] NZHC 1906 [11 July 2025]

however, take into account the purposes and principles in the Sentencing Act 2002. The particular purposes of sentencing I think are relevant to you are:

(a)To hold you accountable for the harm done to the victims by your offending,

(b)To promote in you a sense of responsibility for, and an acknowledgment of, that harm,

(c)To denounce and deter your conduct,

(d)To protect the community, and

(e)To assist in your rehabilitation and reintegration.

[4] I must also consider the seriousness of the offending and your degree of culpability, or moral responsibility, for it. I must also compare the type of offence with other types of offences, as well as other sentences where someone has committed a similar offence. This is because it is generally desirable for similar offenders who have committed similar offences in similar circumstances to be sentenced consistently with one another. I must also take into account any information provided to me concerning the effect of the offending on the victims.

[5] At this point I think it is important to state what will be obvious to all of you: a sentencing hearing such as this one is in most cases an awful experience for everyone concerned. The defendant will usually feel that the sentence is too high; those who have been affected by the defendant’s actions will feel that the sentence is far too lenient. Those different perspectives reflect the fact that the sentencing process has to take account of a number of purposes and principles as I have outlined. There is an inevitable tension between those purposes and principles.

[6] Because sentencing is a public process it is important that I set out the detail of the offending you have been found guilty of. Then I will talk about your personal circumstances, and refer to the victim impact statements I have read.

[7] I will then calculate a sentence by adopting a two-step approach: first, I will set a starting point based on the offending. At that stage…

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 Kimber

Details

AGLC: R v Kimber [2025] NZHC 1906
Case: [2025] NZHC 1906
Decision Date: 11 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mark Gregory Kimber was convicted of two charges of manslaughter for a fatal collision involving Mr and Mrs Boucher. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence that balanced the purposes and principles of sentencing, including accountability, deterrence, denunciation, community protection, and rehabilitation. The court identified the seriousness of the offence, Kimber's excessive speed, failure to stop at a red light, and the resulting deaths of both victims as significant aggravating factors. The court rejected arguments regarding drug and alcohol influence and the dangerous nature of Kimber's driving, as these factors were not substantiated. The starting point for sentencing was set at four years' imprisonment, reflecting the high culpability and seriousness of the offence. Kimber's history of speeding and previous driving convictions were treated as a personal aggravating factor, warranting an uplift of one year. Mitigating factors included Kimber's genuine remorse, efforts to make amends, and personal background of trauma and abuse. These factors led to a 25% discount for remorse and rehabilitation and a 10% discount for personal background. Kimber's time on bail with a nighttime curfew resulted in an additional one-month discount. The final sentence was set at three years and six months' imprisonment, with a three-year disqualification from holding a driver's licence starting from the date of release. The court did not impose a minimum period of imprisonment, leaving parole eligibility to the Parole Board. The court declined to order the confiscation of Kimber's motorcycle.

Orders