R v Ngamotu - [2018] NZHC 893

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE ROTORUA-NUI-Ā-KAHU ROHE

CRI-2017-063-001604

[2018] NZHC 893

THE QUEEN

v

ADRIAN NGAMOTU

Hearing: 11 April 2018

Appearances:

C Macklin for the Crown

A Schulze for the Defendant

Sentencing:

11 April 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF HINTON J

Counsel/Solicitors: Gordon Pilditch, Rotorua Lance Lawson, Rotorua

R v ADRIAN NGAMOTU [2018] NZHC 893 [11 April 2018]

[1] Mr Ngamotu, you appear for sentence after having accepted a sentence indication provided by Davison J on 19 February 2018.1 You have pleaded guilty to one charge of manslaughter and you have been convicted on that charge.

Background

[2] Your offending has a tragic background. It took place in an area of communal family land, situated between Acacia Bay Road and Lake Taupo. You had recently begun residing on the land in an old caravan, which the summary of facts records was owned by the deceased, your sister.

[3] On the morning of 8 May 2017, you and the deceased had an argument over the phone, about ownership of the caravan. You believed you were the rightful owner of it. The deceased disagreed. Upon learning of your plan to swap the caravan for another situated on the land, the deceased and her nephew set about immobilising the caravan. They propped it up onto bricks to remove its wheels.

[4] Upon discovering what the pair were doing, you became very upset and angry. You confronted them about it. You then got into your van and reversed it at speed towards the caravan. You say you intended only to hit the caravan’s awning. However, the end result of your actions went further than that, with tragic consequences. You initially did strike the caravan’s awning at the front-left corner, before hitting the front-left corner of the caravan itself, in the area adjacent to the drawbar at the front of the caravan. In consequence, the caravan was knocked off the bricks and it spun around in a clockwise direction, striking the deceased in the process. The deceased was knocked to the ground, and as the caravan rotated she passed under the drawbar. She was injured and lying on the ground.

[5] Following the initial impact, you continued to reverse your van in a semi-circular direction, with sufficient momentum to take the caravan with you. Once the caravan had spun around sufficiently, there was nothing left in your van’s way. You ran over the deceased, still travelling in reverse. You continued to reverse until

1 R v Ngamotu [2018] NZHC 205.

coming to a stop on a soft dirt bank about 20 metres away. You unsuccessfully tried to drive the van off the bank, before getting out of it.

[6] You were confronted by your nephew. You angrily tried to shift blame, insisting that it was not your fault. Your sister was treated at the scene and ultimately flown to hospital. She tragically passed away during surgery. The injuries she suffered were numerous, including abrasions…

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 Ngamotu

Details

AGLC: R v Ngamotu [2018] NZHC 893
Case: [2018] NZHC 893
Decision Date: 11 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Adrian Ngamotu appeared before the High Court of New Zealand for sentencing after pleading guilty to one charge of manslaughter. The defendant had killed his sister in a dangerous driving incident that stemmed from a dispute over ownership of a caravan. The court was required to determine the appropriate starting point for sentencing, taking into account the purposes and principles of sentencing as set out in the Sentencing Act 2002. The court was also required to consider the defendant's personal circumstances, including his health issues, and the victim impact statements.

The court determined that the appropriate starting point for sentencing was six years' imprisonment. The defendant's actions were reckless and showed a total disregard for the safety of others. Although the defendant did not intend to harm his sister, his actions were extremely dangerous and resulted in her death. The court also considered the defendant's personal circumstances, including his health issues and his expression of remorse. The court determined that a discount of four months for the defendant's health issues and a discount of five months for his expression of remorse were appropriate. The court also applied a 25% discount for the defendant's guilty plea, resulting in a final sentence of three years and nine months' imprisonment. The court also disqualified the defendant from holding or obtaining a driver's license for three years from the date of his release from prison.

Orders