R v Scott - [2015] NZHC 3239

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

CRI-2015-025-1225 [2015] NZHC 3239

THE QUEEN

v

CARA ELIZABETH SCOTT

Hearing: 15 December 2015

Appearances:

E L Higbee for Crown
W N Dawkins for Defendant

Judgment:

15 December 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] Mrs Scott, you are for sentencing today, having pleaded guilty to, and been convicted on, a charge of manslaughter.

Facts

[2] The victim, Charlie Vercoe, was aged six. His family was friendly with your family, and had been for about a year, after first meeting through the Southern Miniature Horse Club.

[3] As a result of this friendship, Charlie and his 12 year old brother would visit your farm from time to time. This was the time at which the brothers were introduced to quad bikes, which, at the time of the accident, they had ridden about
twice each, with adult supervision.

R v SCOTT [2015] NZHC 3239 [15 December 2015]

[4] In the two weeks before Christmas in 2013, the brothers visited your farm regularly to help you and your husband out. They took their BMX helmets along with them, in order to ride the quad bikes.

[5] On 6 January 2014 the two boys were dropped off at your farm by their parents. Charlie rode one of the two quad bikes throughout the morning.

[6] The two bikes were 400cc and 420cc respectively. This enabled the boys to travel at such speeds that resulted in one of your employees on the farm telling Charlie to slow down. During this period of Charlie riding the bike, you were in close proximity, largely centred at the milking sheds.

[7] After briefly losing partial control of the bike upon driving over a pot hole, your employee commented to you that she was concerned that Charlie might hit an adjacently parked tractor, if he lost control of the bike.

[8] When Charlie travelled past you, you yelled at him to slow down, or he would have to get off the bike.

[9] Much later that day, after 5.15 pm you, your husband, and your employee were standing at the implement shed, discussing the calves that you had worked on that afternoon. You were asked by the boys again, whether they could ride the quad bikes, and you assented to their request, saying that they could ride down a fenced lane.

[10] Charlie took the 420cc bike, and his brother the 400cc bike.

[11] Both bikes were affixed with a warning plate, which instructed prospective riders not to ride the bike if they were under 16 years of age.

[12] Both boys mounted the bikes, and rode away from you, until they were out of your sight.

[13] Between five and ten minutes later, Charlie’s older brother returned at speed on his bike and told you that Charlie had crashed into a ditch.

[14] He later reported that he had seen the ditch and was able to stop, but although he shouted at Charlie to warn him of the…

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 Scott

Details

AGLC: R v Scott [2015] NZHC 3239
Case: [2015] NZHC 3239
Decision Date: 15 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Invercargill Registry, the court was required to sentence Mrs Cara Elizabeth Scott on a charge of manslaughter. Mrs Scott had pleaded guilty to the charge after a six-year-old boy, Charlie Vercoe, died when he lost control of a quad bike on her farm. The court had to decide on an appropriate sentence that would hold Mrs Scott accountable for the harm caused, denounce the conduct, and deter her and others from committing similar offences.

The court considered the aggravating and mitigating factors of both the offence and the offender. The aggravating factors of the offence included the dangerousness of the quad bike, Mrs Scott's misjudgement in allowing the boys to ride unsupervised, and the fact that the offence resulted in the death of a child. The mitigating factors included the boys' gradual introduction to the bikes, the rules put in place, and Mrs Scott's warning to the boys to slow down earlier in the day. The court also considered the mitigating factors relating to Mrs Scott, including her good character, extensive career in teaching, and remorse for the incident.

The court decided that a custodial sentence was not necessary and instead ordered Mrs Scott to pay reparation to the Vercoes in the sum of $16,800, the cost of the funeral and headstone for Charlie. The court also noted that the stigma of a conviction and the adverse consequences it would have for Mrs Scott's life, including impediments to travel, were a significant penalty in itself.

The final orders of the court were that Mrs Scott was ordered to pay reparation to the Vercoes in the sum of $16,800. Mrs Scott may now stand down.

Orders