R v Price - [2020] NZHC 2995

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2019-009-10217

[2020] NZHC 2995

THE QUEEN

v

DARYL PRICE

Hearing: 12 November 2020

Appearances:

S R D D Bicknell for Crown J J McCall for Defendant

Judgment:

12 November 2020

SENTENCING REMARKS OF OSBORNE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 12 November 2020 at 12.12 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

R v PRICE [2020] NZHC 2995 [12 November 2020]

Introduction

[1] Mr Price, I am going to ask you to remain seated. Towards the end of the remarks I make, we will reach a point where I need to ask you to stand and I will do that when we come to it. On 31st July 2020, I provided you with a sentence indication on charges of manslaughter and of driving with excess blood alcohol (third or subsequent offence). You accepted the sentence indication of five and a half years’ imprisonment and pleaded guilty. You are now before the Court for sentence.

[2] The sentence indication which I gave set out the facts of your offending and my analysis of the appropriate starting point in full, and I am directing that a copy of those sentence indication remarks be provided to the Department of Corrections so that the Department has those as well as these Sentencing Remarks when considering your position. However, it is appropriate that I repeat some of that detail in Court today given the importance of this sentencing occasion. I will then turn to consider the personal factors that may justify either an uplift or a discount to the starting point before, as I am required to do, reaching an end sentence.

Facts of the offending

[3] On Queen’s Birthday weekend in 2019, you were 41 years old. You were in Christchurch to compete in an indoor cricket tournament. In the afternoon of Sunday 2 June, you and your team mates went to a bar to socialise before the tournament prizegiving. You stayed at that bar for about one and a half hours. You drank three or four stubbies of beer.

[4] Your team mates offered you a lift to the prizegiving at Robbies Riccarton. They were concerned about how much you had had to drink. You refused the lift. You drove yourself to Robbies, arriving late and explaining that you had lost your way. You purchased beer from the bar. At that point you started to become obnoxious and loud, and you were refused further service from the bar.

[5] Your team had won a cup, which was then filled with a jug of beer bought by a team mate. All of the team, including you, drank from that cup. You then picked up a team mate’s second jug of beer and drank the entire litre in one go. You also drank

three quarters of a large bottle of Heineken that a team mate did not want to finish. You tried to start a fight with someone while…

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 Price

Details

AGLC: R v Price [2020] NZHC 2995
Case: [2020] NZHC 2995
Decision Date: 12 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Price involved the defendant, Daryl Price, who was convicted of manslaughter and driving with excess blood alcohol (third or subsequent offence). Price was sentenced by Osborne J in the High Court of New Zealand. The legal issues in the case included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering personal factors that may justify an uplift or discount to the starting point, and imposing a minimum period of imprisonment and disqualification from holding a driver's licence. Additionally, the court considered whether to impose a reparation order.

The court found that the aggravating factors of the case included Price's excessive consumption of alcohol, consumption of drugs, deliberate decision to drive while impaired, length of time and distance driven while impaired, and the harm suffered by the victim's family. The court determined a starting point of six years' imprisonment. However, it allowed a discount of four months for Price's personal background and prospects of rehabilitation, and a further 15 per cent discount for his guilty plea. The court imposed a sentence of five years and two months' imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of two years and seven months. The court also disqualified Price from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for four years, to commence upon his release from imprisonment. The court did not impose a reparation order due to insufficient information about Price's property entitlements.

In summary, the court sentenced Price to five years and two months' imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of two years and seven months, and disqualified him from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for four years. The court also issued a strikes warning to Price due to his manslaughter conviction.

Orders