R v Pora

Case [2015] NZHC 1104 21 May 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-092-012273 [2015] NZHC 1104

THE QUEEN

v

ROBERT PORA

Hearings: 27 February and 21 May 2015

Counsel:

J Murdoch and N E Copeland for the Crown
L Freyer for the Prisoner

Sentence:

21 May 2015

SENTENCE OF DUFFY J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland
Ministry of Justice (Public Defence Service), Auckland

R v PORA [2015] NZHC 1104 [21 May 2015]

[1] Mr Pora, while I read out the reasons for the sentencing, you may be seated. When I come to the time of formally passing sentence, I will ask you to stand.

Summary

[2] You appear for sentence, having pleaded guilty to charges in relation to a motor vehicle crash in which the passenger of the vehicle you were driving was killed, and the driver of another vehicle was injured.

[3] On 27 February 2015, I gave a sentencing indication, which adopted a starting point of seven years, four months’ imprisonment and a period of three years’ disqualification from driving. The reasons for doing so are set out in the indication, which will be attached to, and form part of the sentencing notes. I said that if you pleaded guilty following the sentencing indication, this would warrant a 25 per cent discount. I left the question of any personal mitigating factors for the sentencing Judge, as I did not have the pre-sentence report.

[4] It remains, therefore, for me to determine the allowance to be given for mitigating factors and then to impose the end sentence upon you. Before doing so, I will briefly traverse the facts of the offending.

Background

Offences

[5] I have already read out the offences to which you pleaded guilty.

Facts

[6] The charges arose out of an incident on the evening of Friday, 15 August

2014.

[7] At about 9.30 pm, you were the driver of a motor vehicle driving on Puhinui Road, Manukau. Steven Te Pania was sitting in the front passenger seat of the vehicle.

[8] The police observed you overtake another vehicle at speed, and engaged red and blue lights and a siren. You accelerated and drove through an intersection. You continued driving at an estimated speed of between 80 to 100 kilometres per hour. The relevant speed limit is 50 kilometres per hour.

[9] You approached an intersection where a number of cars were stationary at a red light. You veered into the right hand lane and sped through the intersection and continued driving. At some point, you turned your headlights off.

[10] You attempted to overtake another vehicle, crossing the centre line and striking a raised centre island which marked a pedestrian crossing. You lost control of the vehicle, which travelled down the wrong side of the road before colliding with an oncoming vehicle. The car flipped on its side, trapping both occupants.

[11] Police and ambulance staff arrived. You were extracted from the vehicle and transported to hospital with life-threatening injuries. Mr Te Pania was found to have died…

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 Pora

Details

AGLC: R v Pora [2015] NZHC 1104
Case: [2015] NZHC 1104
Decision Date: 21 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Robert Pora, was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand for charges related to a motor vehicle crash that resulted in the death of his passenger and injury to another driver. The charges included manslaughter, driving recklessly causing injury, driving under the influence of alcohol, and failing to stop when followed by red/blue flashing lights. The court had previously issued a sentencing indication, which was adopted as a starting point of seven years and four months' imprisonment, along with a three-year disqualification from driving. The defendant pleaded guilty following the indication, warranting a 25 per cent discount. The court was required to determine the appropriate allowance for mitigating factors before imposing the final sentence. The court found that the defendant had demonstrated genuine remorse, which warranted a five per cent discount. Additionally, the court considered the defendant's serious injuries from the crash but found they did not warrant a separate discount, as they had no lasting impact. The final sentence was five years' imprisonment, with a three-year disqualification from driving starting upon the defendant's release from prison. The court also noted that the defendant was unable to pay reparation to the victims.

Orders