R v Lyon - [2018] NZHC 952

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-Ā-TARA ROHE

CRI-2017-091-2272

[2018] NZHC 952

THE QUEEN

v

NATHAN JAMES LYON

Hearing: 30 April 2018

Counsel:

D La Hood and R H De Silva for Crown C W J Stevenson for Defendant

Judgment:

4 May 2018

JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J (DISPUTED FACT)

[1] At approximately 10.20 am on 19 March 2017, Mr Lyon was driving a car north on Wellington Road, Paekakariki. His 10 year old stepdaughter was in the passenger seat. Mr Lyon lost control of the car, which mounted the footpath on the opposite side of the road and hit the victim, a woman who was out jogging that morning. She suffered multiple serious injuries as a result of the crash, from which she did not recover. She died at the scene. Mr Lyon’s stepdaughter sustained a gash to her head requiring stitches.

[2] On 7 December 2017, I gave Mr Lyon a sentence indication in respect of one charge of reckless driving causing death, one charge of reckless driving causing injury and one charge of driving while suspended. In that decision, I identified the disputed fact the subject of this decision, that is, whether Mr Lyon had intentionally allowed

R v LYON [2018] NZHC 952 [4 May 2018]

the car to lose traction or whether, as he maintains, he lost control of the vehicle when he accelerated after changing gear at the bend on Wellington Road. I indicated that, if the disputed fact was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, then the starting point of four years’ imprisonment taken for the purpose of the sentence indication would be reduced by six months.

[3] Mr Lyon accepted the sentence indication but requested a disputed fact hearing, which was held on 30 April 2017.

Uncontested background

[4] Wellington Road, Paekakariki travels for about 110 metres north of the intersection with Ocean Road before taking a slight left bend and an uphill gradient to the intersection with Tarawa Street. At the slight left bend the road is approximately
9.2 metres wide. There is raised curbing on the outside of the roadway.

[5] This part of Wellington Road is a residential area with a footpath on the eastern side leading to a primary school. There is no footpath on the western side.

[6] The stretch of Wellington Road between Ocean Road (to the south of the accident site) and Tarawa Street (to the north) was resealed on 15 March 2017 although the road had not been swept of loose gravel. As a result, there were no road markings on this part of the road. The patch of loose gravel began about 90 metres before the slight left bend, at the start of a vehicle bay at the side of the road. The vehicle bay spans most of that 90 metres.

[7] The area is a 50 kilometre per hour zone. By the day of the accident, the temporary 30 kilometre per hour signage in force…

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 Lyon

Details

AGLC: R v Lyon [2018] NZHC 952
Case: [2018] NZHC 952
Decision Date: 4 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of The Queen v Nathan James Lyon was heard and determined. Mr Lyon was charged with reckless driving causing death and injury, and driving while suspended. The central issue was whether Mr Lyon intentionally lost control of his vehicle, a 1997 Mazda RX7 Twin Turbo, causing it to collide with a pedestrian, resulting in her death. The court had to decide if the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Lyon deliberately allowed the car to lose traction before the accident. The Crown argued that Mr Lyon engaged in dangerous driving maneuvers, including fishtailing, which led to the loss of control and subsequent collision. This was based on witness statements, expert evidence, and Mr Lyon's own admissions. The defense countered with arguments about the vehicle's condition and alternative explanations for the loss of control. The court found that the evidence, particularly the observations of a witness who was driving behind Mr Lyon, and expert analysis of the vehicle's trajectory and tyre marks, supported the Crown's case. The court concluded that Mr Lyon had indeed deliberately lost control of the vehicle by accelerating excessively on a road with loose gravel, resulting in the death of the pedestrian. The starting point of the sentence indication remained unchanged at four years' imprisonment.

Orders