1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 171, 160(2)(a) and 177 – life imprisonment.
2      Land Transport Act 1998, s 36(1)(b) – maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment, $20,000 fine.
3      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 52A(1)(a)(ii) and 114(2) – maximum penalty $10,000 fine.

R v RAPSON [2024] NZHC 910 [23 April 2024]

(d)learner driver unaccompanied;4 and

(e)driving a vehicle issued with a non-operation order.5

Facts of the offending

[2] The following events give rise to these charges. On 17 September 2023 you held a learner driver licence but you were driving a vehicle with three passengers, none of whom was wearing a seatbelt.

[3] At around 2.18 am you were stopped on Carmen Road in Christchurch due to the condition of the vehicle. It had a piece cut out of the bonnet, cracked wheel rims, no VIN plate and no registration sticker. The warrant of fitness had been scratched off. You were issued with a non-operation order and, as a consequence, you were instructed to drive directly home, at no more than 50 kmph, and not to drive it again until the defects were remedied. You were also told of the dangers of driving the car in that state. A further inspection of the vehicle after the crash, showed it had other defects including mismatched tyres, no tread on the tyres, mismatched rims, and loose wheel nuts.

[4] Instead of complying with the instruction, you drove north out of the city with multiple other vehicles shortly before 4 am that night. While you were going north, another police car established that the car you were driving was subject of a non-operation order. It activated its red and blue lights. Instead of stopping, you increased your speed and turned your headlights off, reaching speeds of between 167 and 178 kmph in a 50 kmph zone. The police pursuit was called off such were the concerns about your driving. You subsequently lost control of the vehicle at a speed of between 143 and 147 kmph. The vehicle left the road and collided with a large tree at the front of a property in McIvor Place in Rangiora.

[5] As a result of the crash, as we have heard, the front passenger, Zara Mitchell, was tragically killed and the two other passengers received injuries.

4 Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Rule 1999 cl 16(1)(a) – maximum penalty $100 fine.
5 Land Transport Act 1998, s 52(1) – maximum penalty $10,000 fine.

[6] You had been consuming cannabis throughout the day and a blood test returned a positive…

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 Rapson

Details

AGLC: R v Rapson [2024] NZHC 910
Case: [2024] NZHC 910
Decision Date: 23 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rapson was heard in the High Court of New Zealand in Christchurch, where the defendant, Adam Michael Rapson, faced charges of manslaughter, dangerous driving causing injury, failing to stop when followed by police, driving unaccompanied as a learner driver, and driving a vehicle issued with a non-operation order. The legal issues the court had to decide involved determining an appropriate sentence for these charges, considering both aggravating and mitigating factors, and ensuring that the sentence met the purposes and principles of sentencing.

The court began by setting a starting point for the lead charge of manslaughter, considering the totality of the defendant's behaviour and the aggravating factors, which included excessive speed, deliberate dangerous driving, the vehicle's poor condition, failure to stop for police, the defendant's status as a learner driver, and the fact that the driving led to the death of a passenger and injuries to others. The court found that the circumstances were most analogous to cases with starting points of seven years’ imprisonment. The court then considered mitigating factors such as the defendant's early guilty plea, youth, remorse demonstrated through restorative justice, and rehabilitative prospects. The court also took into account the defendant's background, including exposure to domestic violence, parental separation, and substance abuse. After applying these mitigating factors, the court reduced the sentence to three and a half years’ imprisonment, with a concurrent one-year sentence for each charge of dangerous driving causing injury. The defendant was also disqualified from driving for three years upon release from imprisonment.

The final orders of the court were that Adam Michael Rapson was sentenced to three and a half years’ imprisonment for manslaughter, one year’s imprisonment for each charge of dangerous driving causing injury (to be served concurrently), and was convicted and discharged on the remaining charges. Additionally, he was disqualified from driving for three years, with that period to commence on his release from imprisonment.

Orders