R v Millar - [2018] NZHC 625

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2017-002-000317 [2018] NZHC 625

THE QUEEN

v

SCOTT DAVID MILLAR

Hearing: 9 April 2018

Appearances:

R D Smith for the Crown

R D Checketts for the Defendant

Judgment:

9 April 2018

SENTENCING REMARKS OF NATION J

[1]Scott Millar, you can remain seated while I go through my remarks.

[2] You have read the victim impact statement from the Sharma family and today you heard it being read out and you saw Mr Sharma standing there as that happened. For the Sharma family, life stopped when they heard that, because of your actions, their son and brother had been killed. They struggle with that loss every day. No sentence this Court can impose can take away or even reduce their grief.

[3] You know you face a sentence of imprisonment. Unlike Ravineel, a time will come when you have the opportunity to rebuild your life. A time will eventually come when you are likely to be able to drive a vehicle. You will be older then. If you ever think of driving aggressively or too fast or after you have been drinking, remember what happened on 10 August 2017. Think of the family of your friend who were

R v MILLAR [2018] NZHC 625 [9 April 2018]

unable to sit down at their dinner table as a family because they could not bear the sight of an empty chair. You owe it to them to make something of your life after your prison sentence finishes, and to make sure that what you did can never happen again. You are fortunate that you have the love and support of your family and others in the community, including your employer, who will help you get through this. With your upbringing, you have the character and basic values you need to come out of this a stronger person. Do not let prison mark you for life.

[4] In 2011, Parliament increased the maximum sentence for dangerous or reckless driving causing death from five years’ imprisonment to 10 years as part of a package of reforms intended to promote road safety and to indicate to the Courts that Parliament and society expected to see stronger penalties for dangerous or reckless driving causing death.

[5] Before that penalty was increased, the Court of Appeal said that the reason for charging manslaughter in driving cases is because the appropriate penalty should exceed the maximum provided for in Land Transport Act 1998 offences, such as reckless driving causing death.1 It was appropriate that you were charged with manslaughter and that you have pleaded guilty to that charge.

[6] As a result of the injuries caused to Hayden Crawley, you have pleaded guilty to the charge of reckless driving causing injury for which the maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment, but you have also pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter for which a maximum potential penalty is life imprisonment.

[7] On…

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 Millar

Details

AGLC: R v Millar [2018] NZHC 625
Case: [2018] NZHC 625
Decision Date: 9 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Scott Millar appeared in the High Court of New Zealand at Dunedin before Justice Nation, where he was sentenced for charges of manslaughter and reckless driving causing injury. The manslaughter charge stemmed from Millar's involvement in a car accident on 10 August 2017, where he was driving under the influence of alcohol, causing the death of Ravineel Sharma and injuring Hayden Crawley. Millar had consumed alcohol at a barbecue before offering a lift to the two victims, driving recklessly at excessive speeds and performing dangerous manoeuvres. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence considering the severity of the offence, the circumstances surrounding it, and the mitigating factors present in Millar's case.

The court considered the aggravating factors of the case, including Millar's decision to take the victims on an unnecessary joyride, his excessive alcohol consumption, and his disregard for the safety of the passengers and other road users. The court also considered mitigating factors such as Millar's young age, his remorse, and his willingness to participate in restorative justice and make a reparation payment of $20,000 to the Sharma family. The court acknowledged the importance of considering the potential for rehabilitation and reintegration of the offender back into the community.

Based on the court's reasoning, Millar was sentenced to three years and ten months' imprisonment for manslaughter, and two years' imprisonment for reckless driving causing injury, to run concurrently. In addition, Millar was disqualified from driving for five years and ordered to pay the reparation payment of $20,000 to the Sharma family. The court took into account the severity of the offence, the circumstances surrounding it, and the mitigating factors present in Millar's case, arriving at an appropriate sentence that balances the need for accountability, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Orders