R v Stevens - [2017] NZHC 727

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI 2016-085-933 [2017] NZHC 727

THE QUEEN

v

MARK DAVID STEVENS

Hearing: 12 April 2017

Counsel:

P K Feltham for Crown
J M Ablett-Kerr QC and E M Hall for Defendant

Sentence:

12 April 2017

SENTENCE OF SIMON FRANCE J

[1] Mr Stevens, you appear for sentencing on two charges: (a) manslaughter; and
(b) drink driving.1

[2] The victim was your partner of some 15 years; Ms Delia Williams. We have today heard from Ms Williams’ mother, son and siblings. It is clear they feel a deep sense of loss, and I acknowledge that and thank them for their input today. The accounts we have heard today bring home the tragedy that always underlies these events. There is always sadness, and also conflicting emotions. It is important and helpful for the Court to be reminded of the reality of these situations. I say to the
members of Ms Williams’ family that I hope that even through your grief and

1 Land Transport Act 1998, s 56(1); a breath alcohol reading of 510mg.

R v STEVENS [2017] NZHC 727 [12 April 2017]

frustration and perhaps anger, you will understand that the sentencing today is not in any way trying to assess what a life is worth. Rather, it reflects the circumstances in which the life was lost, and properly holds the offender accountable for those circumstances and the fact that he has caused a death.

[3] My other introductory comment is that I know it will be difficult but it is important to realise that the sentencing today proceeds on the basis of an agreed summary of facts as to what happened. Mr Stevens was originally charged with murder which carries the idea that he deliberately tried to hurt Ms Williams by driving at her. It is now accepted by the prosecution that this is not so. Ms Williams death was an accident, but it was an accident that should never have happened and which was brought about by Mr Stevens’ gross carelessness. He acknowledges that by his plea to manslaughter.

[4] The relationship between you, Mr Stevens, and Ms Williams has been described as a volatile or turbulent one. It obviously involved genuine love and affection, but also moments of anger and dispute. The records indicate Police were called to 10 incidents, and in 2010 you were convicted of assaulting Ms Williams.

[5] A second aspect of the relationship was the use of alcohol, and it is clear a considerable quantity had been consumed on the day or evening in question. After dinner Ms Williams and yourself began arguing and you decided to leave. Ms Williams followed you as you reversed, intoxicated, up the driveway, trying to convince you it seems to not drive while intoxicated. You were initially driving slowly but sped up as Ms Williams approached.

[6] Ms Williams tried to stop you leaving and grabbed the door handle on the driver’s side. A tug of war with 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 Stevens

Details

AGLC: R v Stevens [2017] NZHC 727
Case: [2017] NZHC 727
Decision Date: 12 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the defendant, Mark David Stevens, was sentenced for two charges: manslaughter and drink driving. The victim, Ms Delia Williams, was the defendant's partner of fifteen years. The court heard statements from the victim's family, who expressed their profound sense of loss. The defendant had originally been charged with murder, but it was accepted by the prosecution that the death was an accident caused by the defendant's gross carelessness. The defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter, acknowledging that while he did not intend to harm Ms Williams, the risk of doing so was obvious, and he was intoxicated at the time.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate sentence for manslaughter and drink driving, considering the defendant's guilty plea, remorse, and history of alcohol-related offenses. The court also had to address the impact of the defendant's intoxication on his culpability and the need for consistency with similar cases. The court found that the defendant's lack of care and intoxication significantly contributed to the manslaughter, leading to the death of Ms Williams. The court considered the defendant's sixth drink driving conviction, his lack of awareness of the risk he posed, and the need to hold him accountable for his actions.

The court sentenced the defendant to three years' imprisonment for manslaughter, with an additional three months for his sixth drink driving offence, to be served concurrently. The court also disqualified the defendant from driving for four years following his release from prison and ordered the confiscation of his vehicle. The sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences, the defendant's history of alcohol-related driving, and the need for adequate accountability for the loss of life.

Orders