R v Savigny - [2021] NZHC 164

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2020-012-000683

[2021] NZHC 164

THE QUEEN

v

LUKE BRADLEY SAVIGNY

Hearing: 3 February 2021

Appearances:

R McDonald for Crown

A Stevens QC for Mr Savigny

Judgment:

3 February 2021

SENTENCING NOTES OF DOOGUE J

Introduction

[1] What I would like to do now is to observe some moments of silence in reverence of your son, brother, father, grandson.

[2] It is now my task to sentence Mr Savigny. I want to say to Chippa’s family before I do so that there is a very formal way in which the case authorities and the Higher Courts have required Judges to follow when they sentence in cases such as this. It is likely to sound very clinical to you, might even sound like a formula because I will be using percentages, but it is my job to do it that way. The reason why I wanted to observe a moment’s silence for your loved one was because I did not want you to think that a person sitting here is devoid of emotion around these things, Judges are

R v SAVIGNY [2021] NZHC 164

human beings as well, and I acknowledge the tremendous sadness that fills this courtroom today.

[3]Now I will undertake the formal task that I am obliged to undertake.

[4] Luke Bradley Savigny, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to motor manslaughter following the death of your victim, Christopher Narayan Blair, also known as Chippa.1

The offending

[5] At the time of this offending you were 24 years old and had never held a driver’s licence. You were subject to the sentence of supervision for substantially similar offending in January 2019. You were also stopped by police on 18 March 2020 and forbidden from driving until you had obtained a licence.

[6] Three days later, on 21 March 2020 at approximately 4.15 am, you picked up Chippa from his address in South Dunedin. Together you travelled to the home of a female associate and shared a bottle of gin. After an altercation with the associate you took her vehicle without her permission and drove away in that vehicle with Chippa as a passenger at around 5.50 am.

[7] At approximately 6.10 am you travelled through Waikouaiti. North of the town were roadworks controlled by a 30 km/h temporary speed limit. You overtook a vehicle within the roadworks, knocking over road cones and causing the other driver to take evasive action.

[8] At 6.22 am you put $50 of petrol in the vehicle at a Z Petrol Station in Palmerston.

[9] A short time later, you overtook a line of three vehicles across double yellow lines at high speed. The road was undulating and curving to the right along a small

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 160(2)(9) and 177; maximum penalty life imprisonment.

rise, with a speed limit of 50 km/h. Soon after that you overtook another vehicle at excessive speed.

[10]…

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 Savigny

Details

AGLC: R v Savigny [2021] NZHC 164
Case: [2021] NZHC 164
Decision Date: 3 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Savigny was heard by Doogue J in the High Court of New Zealand. Luke Bradley Savigny was sentenced for motor manslaughter following the death of his passenger, Christopher Narayan Blair. Savigny, who had no driver's licence, drove dangerously while under the influence of drugs, resulting in a fatal crash. The legal issues before the court included determining an appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering both aggravating and mitigating factors, and deciding on a minimum period of imprisonment and disqualification from driving.

The court considered several aggravating factors, such as Savigny's excessive speed, dangerous driving, and previous convictions for similar offences. The mitigating factors included Savigny's guilty plea and evidence suggesting his passenger encouraged the reckless driving. The court adopted a starting point of nine years' imprisonment, slightly elevated from cases with similar but not identical circumstances. After applying discounts for Savigny's guilty plea, remorse, and personal background, the court determined a sentence of five years and seven months. The court also imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of three years to ensure adequate deterrence and denunciation. Additionally, Savigny was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for eight years. Finally, the court issued a three strikes warning, informing Savigny of the severe consequences of future serious convictions.

The final orders of the court were that Savigny be sentenced to five years and seven months imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of three years, and that he be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for eight years.

Orders