R v Stephens

[2024] NZHC 564

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2023-054-1040

[2024] NZHC 564

THE KING

v

PATRIZIA STEPHENS

On the Papers

Counsel:

G J Carter for the Crown

P L Murray for the Defendant

Judgment:

15 March 2024

SUPPLEMENTARY SENTENCING NOTES OF GWYN J

[1]    On 7 December 2023 I sentenced the defendant, Patrizia Stephens, to three years  and  four  months’  imprisonment,  together  with  an   order   disqualifying Ms Stephens from holding or obtaining a driver licence for a period of four years, to commence on her release from prison.1

[2]    In addition, I ordered that Ms Stephens pay reparation to Mr Mike Davis, one of the victims of her offending, in the amount of $900.

[3]    At sentencing, the Police had provided three reparation schedules, one of which related to the insurance excess on Mr Davis’ car. The other two were:

1      R v Stephens [2023] NZHC 3555.

R v STEPHENS [2024] NZHC 564 [15 March 2024]

(a)$14,161.02 for repairs to the roading infrastructure and traffic lights Ms Stephens damaged when the car spun out of control;

(b)$6,667.71 for repairs to the garage door and window that Ms Stephens hit with her car when she collided with the deceased victim, Mr Martin.

[4]    I granted leave to the Crown to file a memorandum quantifying the details of the further reparation sought.

[5]    By memorandum of 26 January 2024, counsel for the Crown advised, first, that the Police had contacted Mr Davis who advised that the $900 excess on his insurance policy was paid outright by the insurance company and he has not been receiving payments directly from Ms Stephens. Counsel presumes the $40 per week that they understood Ms Stephens was paying out of her Jobseeker’s benefit is being paid directly to the insurance company.

[6]As noted above, I ordered on 7 December 2023 that this payment continue.

[7]    As to the reparation sought by the Palmerston North City Council (PNCC), PNCC has provided Police with a “material damage and business interruption policy” which provides that the company’s liability will not exceed $10,000 in any one event, including material damage. PNCC has sought $14,161.02 to cover all costs regardless of insurance which would have covered the cost of repair.

[8]    It is not clear to me from the information provided whether PNCC has itself incurred loss as a result of the damage caused by Ms Stephens, or whether all its loss has been met pursuant to the insurance policy. Despite requests from the Police, PNCC has failed to clarify the position. There is therefore no basis to order the reparation sought and I decline to do so.

[9]    Police have not been able to obtain insurance information from Mr Tate-Davis in relation to the cost of his building repairs.

[10]   Mr Murray, counsel for Ms Stephens, submits that, in principle, reparation is appropriate. However, he notes that Ms Stephens has no savings and is now a

sentenced prisoner without an income. Her income on release is likely to be modest

– she was in receipt of a social welfare benefit prior to sentencing.

[11]   Counsel accepts that an order over a five year period is appropriate, but the quantum must take account of the defendant’s inability to earn while in prison and her likely modest income on release. Nevertheless, as counsel accepts, a reparation order should be at a level that gives effect to meaningful restoration of the loss suffered.

The law

[12]   Section 12 of the Sentencing Act 2002 (Act) provides for the Court to order a sentence of reparation. Such a sentence must be imposed unless the Court is satisfied that the sentence would result in undue hardship for the offender or the dependants of the offender, or that any other special circumstances would make it inappropriate.

[13]   Section 35 of the Act allows the Court to take into account the offender’s financial capacity.

[14]   Having regard to Ms Stephens’ financial circumstances, I would have been prepared to direct that she pay a portion of the loss suffered by Mr Tate-Davis. However, in the absence of information from Mr Tate-Davis about whether he was able to recover any of that loss from his insurer, I am not in a position to make such a direction.

[15] Accordingly, I make no further directions in respect of reparation. I confirm, as at [2] above, that the payments to Mr Davis are to continue on Ms Stephens’ release from prison, to a total of $900.00.

Gwyn J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Palmerston North Mr Murray, Palmerston North