R v Ross - [2023] NZHC 2477

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE TIHI-O-MARU ROHE

CRI-2022-045-238

[2023] NZHC 2477

THE KING

v

JOHN DAVID ROSS

Hearing: 5 September 2023

Appearances:

S M H McManus for Crown

S A Saunderson-Warner for Defendant

Judgment:

5 September 2023

SENTENCING REMARKS OF EATON J

[1] John David Ross, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter. Your guilty plea was entered following your acceptance of a sentencing indication I gave on 6 June this year.1 The sentence indication notes are to be attached to the sentencing notes.

[2] I acknowledge the presence in court this morning of the family of Brendan Prince.

[3] In sentencing you today, Mr Ross, I will first outline the facts of your offending and refer to the consequences of your offending on the victims. Then, I will refer to the starting point for the offence of manslaughter in cases involving dangerous driving.

1 R v Ross [2023] NZHC 1441.

R v ROSS [2023] NZHC 2477 [5 September 2023]

I will then refer to your personal circumstances. Of course, as with the starting point, a number of those circumstances were considered at the sentence indication hearing, but final quantification of the appropriate total deductions was left to be determined today, awaiting further material.

The offending

[4] You personally will be all too familiar with the details of your admitted offending, as will Mr Prince’s family. However, sentencing is a public function to be undertaken in an open court, and it is necessary for me to refer to the facts of your offending.

[5] On 19 February 2022, you were 18 years old and on a restricted licence. You picked up a passenger in breach of the terms of your restricted licence. You had been drinking. Your passenger was concerned and took over the driving of your vehicle. Due to your intoxication and related belligerent behaviour, that person then left you. You took up the wheel again and drove to meet up with three associates at King George Park in Oamaru.

[6] At the park, you continued drinking alcohol. All four of you then decided to travel in your vehicle to the north end of Oamaru. You were driving. Your front seat passenger was Brendan Prince, a young man aged 25. The rear seat passengers were aged 17 and 19 years. You drove at speed down Tyne Street. You did not slow for the Tyne Street roundabout and narrowly missed a collision with another vehicle. You then drove to an area known locally as “The Junction”, where Wansbeck Street becomes State Highway One and drove through the main street of Oamaru. The maximum speed limit is 50 kph. You were observed by members of the public travelling at a much higher speed, weaving in and out of traffic, tailgating, and overtaking other road-users. As you passed the Countdown supermarket, you failed to follow the curvature of the road and had to take evasive…

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 Ross

Details

AGLC: R v Ross [2023] NZHC 2477
Case: [2023] NZHC 2477
Decision Date: 5 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

John David Ross has been sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand, Timaru Registry, on a charge of manslaughter. The sentencing hearing took place on 5 September 2023, with appearances by S M H McManus for the Crown and S A Saunderson-Warner for the defendant. The judgment was delivered on the same day by Eaton J.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included the starting point for the offence of manslaughter involving dangerous driving, the appropriate deductions for the defendant’s youth, mental health issues, and guilty plea, and the extent of any further deduction for remorse and rehabilitation. The court also had to determine the appropriate term of disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence and the amount of reparation to be ordered.

The court began by outlining the facts of the defendant’s offending, noting that he was heavily intoxicated and driving at excessive speeds, resulting in the death of his front seat passenger, Brendan Prince. The court considered various aggravating factors, including the defendant’s high alcohol level, dangerous driving, and breach of his restricted licence conditions. Based on these factors and relevant case law, the court set a starting point of six and a half years’ imprisonment.

Regarding deductions, the court allowed a 15 per cent discount for the defendant’s youth, a 15 per cent credit for his mental health issues, and a 25 per cent credit for his guilty plea. The court also considered the defendant’s participation in the Right Track programme and his expressions of remorse and commitment to rehabilitation, leading to a further 10 per cent deduction. The total deductions amounted to 65 per cent, resulting in an end sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment.

The court ordered the defendant to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for five years from the date of his release from prison and to make reparation in specified amounts to the victims and Network Waitaki.

This case highlights the court’s approach to sentencing in cases of motor manslaughter, emphasising the need for strong messages to deter similar offending and the importance of considering individual circumstances in determining appropriate sentences.

Orders