[2] It is, of course, particularly tragic for the family of Ricky Pettigrew. He was only 16 when he died in such avoidable circumstances. He had his whole life in front of him and he did not deserve to die in such a violent way in the back seat of the car driven by his stepbrother. Ricky Pettigrew’s death is the greatest tragedy in this whole ghastly business.

[3] But it is also a tragedy that you, Colt Murcott, must every day for the rest of your life, look back at what happened that night in late October last year when, because of your immaturity, because your lack of insight, because of your bravado you took to the wheel of your car when you knew that you should not have; when
you knew there were others in your car who you had a duty to keep safe and to

R v MURCOTT [2014] NZHC 971 [8 May 2014]

protect but instead, you showed off and in doing so, in the space of probably no more than a minute or two, you ended up losing control of your car, slamming it at speed sideways into a tree killing Ricky and injuring your other two passengers sufficiently seriously that they had to go to hospital.

[4] The sentence I will be imposing on you will be finite in the sense it will have an end, at least as far as you and the law is concerned. But I suspect that the real sentence you will face for the rest of your life is that you will have to live in the knowledge that in a moment of stupidity and a moment of immaturity you took the life of Ricky.

[5] My task today is to hand down a sentence. The sentencing process is about applying the law, as Parliament has written it and as other Judges have interpreted it.

[6] Some may feel that the sentence I will impose is too lenient. Others, no doubt, will feel it is too harsh.

[7] But the sentencing process is not about engaging the popularity of any particular quarter in our community. It is about applying the law correctly and dispassionately. It is the law which prescribes what I must do today and having heard the very helpful submissions made by both lawyers it is noteworthy that there is actually a high degree of agreement about the range and limits of the sentencing options in this case. And that has made this difficult task a good deal easier.

[8] Mr Murcott, you have pleaded guilty to:

(a) two charges of driving with excess breath…

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 Murcott

Details

AGLC: R v Murcott [2014] NZHC 971
Case: [2014] NZHC 971
Decision Date: 8 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand Rotorua Registry, the case of R v Murcott involved Colt Arthur Murcott, who was charged with two counts of driving with excess breath alcohol and causing injury, two counts of reckless driving causing injury, one count of failing to stop or ascertain injury or death after an accident, and one count of manslaughter. The incident occurred on 27 October, when Murcott drove recklessly while heavily intoxicated, resulting in a crash that killed his 16-year-old stepbrother, Ricky Pettigrew, and injured two other passengers. The court heard that Murcott had consumed a significant amount of alcohol and was driving at an excessive speed on a gravel road with reduced visibility, disregarding warnings from his passengers.

The legal issues in the case involved determining an appropriate sentence for Murcott, taking into account factors such as the aggravating circumstances of the offence, Murcott's youth, his good character, and his expressions of remorse. The court also needed to consider the impact of Murcott's guilty plea on his sentence.

In delivering the judgment, the court established a starting point of six years and six months' imprisonment, taking into account the aggravating factors such as alcohol consumption, excessive speed, disregard of warnings, and driving in breach of licence conditions. The court also considered the personal factors, such as Murcott's age, good character, and expressions of remorse. After applying a discount for youth, good character, and the guilty plea, the court imposed a final sentence of three years and two months' imprisonment, to be served concurrently with the other charges. Additionally, Murcott was disqualified from driving for three years following his release and ordered to pay a reparation fee of $93.

The court also issued a three strikes warning to Murcott, informing him that if he were to be convicted of any serious violent offences other than murder after this warning, he would serve that sentence without parole or early release. If convicted of murder following this warning, he would be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, unless it would be manifestly unjust, in which case the judge must sentence him to a minimum term of imprisonment.

Orders