R v Martin - [2020] NZHC 1542

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2020-025-000234

[2020] NZHC 1542

THE QUEEN

v

RODNEY MARTIN

Hearing: 2 July 2020

Appearances:

R W Donnelly for Crown

F E Guy Kidd QC for Defendant

Judgment:

2 July 2020

SENTENCING NOTES OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] Mr Martin, you are here for sentence today having pleaded guilty to one charge of reckless driving causing death.

[2] However, before I begin with sentencing, I want to acknowledge the family of Nola Paterson-Barton, her husband Jamie, her children, Sophia, Lucy and Ruby, her twin sister Julie, her mother Hilary, and her mother-in-law Lorna. Thank you all for writing so warmly and passionately about what Nola meant to you. Nothing I can do in sentencing today will bring Nola back nor will it ease the sense of grief that you feel. All I can hope is that through the sentencing process, you have been able to share with the community what Nola meant to you and after this you will be able to get back to your lives and deal with the grief and the loss, that you are suffering.

R v MARTIN [2020] NZHC 1542 [2 July 2020]

[3] Before discussing how I have reached the sentence today, I need to briefly outline the facts of the offending.

[4] The accident occurred at the intersection of Mill Road South and Oteramika Road, which are both major roads in rural Southland. The intersection is recognised as a regular crash site and is controlled by a stop sign requiring traffic on Mill Road South to stop, allowing Oteramika Road traffic right of way. Mill Road South is signposted with three different stop warning signs beginning 250 metres from the intersection. One of the signs is erected on both sides of Mill Road South and is an extremely large road sign that reads “High Crash Site, Stop Ahead”.

[5] At around 6.30 am on 21 November 2019 you were driving your Ford Ranger utility vehicle south on Mill Road South. You know the road and the intersection as you drive it often. As you approached the intersection, another motorist travelling ahead of you stopped at the required point and travelled through the intersection safely.

[6] As you approached the stop sign you applied the accelerator making no attempt to stop and check if the way was clear.

[7] Your victim, Nola Paterson-Barton, was travelling west on Oteramika Road in a Ford Territory vehicle. You proceeded through the intersection and T-boned the victim in her vehicle directly on her driver’s door side, causing her vehicle to be pushed through the intersection, slide along a neighbouring fence line, before coming to rest. She was trapped in her vehicle and although you and members of the public attempted to assist before emergency services arrived, she died at the scene.

[8] When you were spoken to, you acknowledged that you had consciously decided not to stop at the stop sign as 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 Martin

Details

AGLC: R v Martin [2020] NZHC 1542
Case: [2020] NZHC 1542
Decision Date: 2 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rodney Martin was sentenced by the High Court of New Zealand for a charge of reckless driving causing the death of Nola Paterson-Barton. The key legal issue in this case was determining the appropriate sentence for Mr Martin, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case. The court had to consider the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act 2002, which included denouncing the conduct, deterring others from committing similar offences, holding the offender accountable for the harm caused, and imposing the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances. The starting point for the sentence was determined to be 27 months' imprisonment, based on the limited aggravating features of the case. However, considering the mitigating factors such as Mr Martin's genuine remorse, good character references, and offer to make reparation payments, the sentence was reduced to a notional sentence of 16 months. The court ultimately decided on a sentence of eight months' home detention, two years' disqualification from driving, and reparation payments of $10,000 to the victim's husband and $1,594.78 to the owner of the damaged property. This decision was made in light of the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act, and the practical difficulties of serving home detention in Mr Martin's remote location.

In summary, the High Court of New Zealand sentenced Rodney Martin to eight months' home detention, two years' disqualification from driving, and reparation payments of $10,000 to the victim's husband and $1,594.78 to the owner of the damaged property. The court took into account the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case, and considered the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act 2002 in reaching its decision. This case highlights the importance of considering the unique circumstances of each case when determining an appropriate sentence, and the need to balance the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act with the practicalities of serving a sentence.

Orders