R v Richards - [2017] NZHC 74

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CRI-2016-012-000172 [2017] NZHC 74

REGINA

v

SHAY ROBERT RICHARDS

Hearing: 3 February 2017

Appearances:

R D Smith for Crown
A Stevens for Defendant

Judgment:

3 February 2017

SENTENCING REMARKS OF GENDALL J

Introduction

[1] Mr Richards, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to one charge of reckless driving causing death, three counts of reckless driving causing injury and one count of theft of petrol. These charges are the result of your actions on 29 July 2015 which lead to the tragic death of Ms Nikita Strange.

[2] You may be seated now until I ask you to stand.

[3] The maximum penalty for the most serious charge of reckless driving causing death is 10 years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $20,000. Reckless driving causing injury carries a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $20,000. Both also require a minimum period of licence disqualification of one year. The theft charge carries a maximum penalty of three months’
imprisonment.

R v RICHARDS [2017] NZHC 74 [3 February 2017]

[4] Mr Richards, you are now 20 years of age, having been 18 at the time of the offending. You have two previous convictions involving theft and you have also twice been convicted and discharged as an unlicensed driver.

Facts

[5] I will now briefly outline the facts of your offending. Early in the morning hours of 29 July 2015, Ms Strange contacted you for help in getting petrol for the car she and her acquaintances were in. Ms Strange, along with Mr Devin Sparrow, Mr Liam Boniface and Mr Xavier Sardiello, had driven up to Dunedin from Invercargill, intending to drive to Christchurch. They realised near Dunedin that they needed petrol but did not have enough money. You offered to do a petrol “drive-off” for the group. The group picked you up and your friend, Ms Kama Hurring. You took over the driving of the car and pulled into the BP Service Station on Cumberland Street, Dunedin, at 2.05 am.

[6] Ms Hurring proceeded to fill the car with $75.54 worth of petrol and then got back in the car. You then quickly drove away, tyres squealing, from the station without paying for the petrol. During this stage Mr Sardiello was the front seat passenger. The other four passengers were sitting in the back. None of the back seat passengers were wearing a seat belt.

[7] You drove south on Cumberland Street before turning and travelling the wrong way down a one-way street to get on to a road back towards Central Dunedin. A passenger estimated that you reached speeds of up to 80 kmph but you told police you were travelling only around 60 km/h. Mr Sardiello told you to slow down and Ms Hurring told you to “stop driving like an idiot” but you did not respond to them.

[8] You turned off Princes Street onto Hope Street, driving at speeds of around

60…

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 Richards

Details

AGLC: R v Richards [2017] NZHC 74
Case: [2017] NZHC 74
Decision Date: 3 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Shay Robert Richards was sentenced for multiple charges including reckless driving causing death, reckless driving causing injury, and theft of petrol. The charges stemmed from an incident on 29 July 2015, where Richards drove a vehicle without paying for petrol and subsequently crashed into another vehicle, resulting in the death of Nikita Strange and injuries to several others. The court needed to determine the appropriate sentence considering the severity of the offenses, the culpability of Richards, and various mitigating factors.

The legal issues involved determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, and applying the correct discounts for personal factors and a guilty plea. The court had to weigh the principles of accountability, deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation while ensuring the sentence reflected the totality of the offending. The maximum penalties for the offenses ranged from fines to imprisonment and mandatory disqualification periods for driving offenses.

The court considered various factors in arriving at its decision. The court found that the offense was at the higher end of culpability due to factors such as drug consumption, disregard for passenger warnings, and previous driving offenses. The court set a starting point of five years' imprisonment. Personal factors such as Richards' age and difficult family background warranted a 10% discount, and his early guilty plea warranted a 25% discount, leading to a final sentence of three years and three months' imprisonment. The court also imposed a four-year disqualification from driving.

In summary, Shay Robert Richards was sentenced to three years and three months' imprisonment for reckless driving causing death and related offenses, with an additional concurrent sentence for theft. He was also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's license for four years.

Orders