R v Stephens

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

The High Court of New Zealand, Palmerston North Registry, dealt with a case involving Patrizia Stephens, who was sentenced on 7 December 2023 to three years and four months in prison, along with a four-year disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence. Stephens was also ordered to pay reparation to Mr Mike Davis, one of the victims of her driving offences, in the amount of $900. The court had to address issues concerning the extent and enforceability of the reparation orders given to Stephens, particularly in light of her financial circumstances and the possibility of insurance coverage for some of the damages.

The legal issues before the court included whether the reparation orders made were appropriate given the defendant's financial situation and whether the orders could be enforced considering the absence of certain information about insurance coverage. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the order for Stephens to pay $14,161.02 to the Palmerston North City Council for damages to road infrastructure and traffic lights, and $6,667.71 to Mr Tate-Davis for damages to his building, was enforceable. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the $900 reparation order to Mr Davis could be modified given that the insurance company had already paid the insurance excess.

The court considered the Sentencing Act 2002, which mandates that reparation sentences must be imposed unless they would cause undue hardship or other special circumstances apply. The court acknowledged that Stephens had no savings and would likely have a modest income upon release from prison. While the court was prepared to order a portion of the reparation for Mr Tate-Davis, the lack of information on whether he had insurance coverage prevented the court from making such an order. The court confirmed that the $900 reparation to Mr Davis would continue post-release, but no further reparation orders were made.

In summary, the court decided not to enforce the reparation orders to the Palmerston North City Council and Mr Tate-Davis due to insufficient information regarding insurance coverage. However, the court upheld the $900 reparation order to Mr Davis, which would continue upon Stephens' release from prison.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established