R v Stockwell
[2024] NZHC 1590
•17 June 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE TIHI-O-MARU ROHE
CRI-2023-076-1231
[2024] NZHC 1590
THE KING v
MURRAY DEANE STOCKWELL
Hearing: 17 June 2024 Appearances:
S M H McManus for Crown P J Norcross for Defendant
Judgment:
17 June 2024
ORAL SENTENCING REMARKS OF OSBORNE J
Introduction
[1]Mr Stockwell, I ask you to stand, please.
[2] Murray Deane Stockwell, you appear for sentence on two charges of manslaughter. You pleaded guilty and were convicted on 17 May 2024. The charges of manslaughter arose from the fact that you caused the deaths of Shane Davidson and Stephanie Gilbert by driving your Falcon V8 motorcar in a dangerous manner.
[3] I am shortly going to ask you to sit again while I explain the sentence I will be imposing on you. This will take some time. I will indicate to you towards the end when you need to stand again.
R v STOCKWELL [2024] NZHC 1590 [17 June 2024]
[4]Please be seated for now.
[5] As you will recall Mr Stockwell, in March this year you requested a sentence indication once the Crown had completed disclosure to you. Having heard submissions, I gave you a sentencing indication on 8 May 2024 which you promptly accepted and entered guilty pleas. I will attach to the typed version of these sentencing remarks a copy of the sentencing indication I gave you in May.
[6] Some of what I have to say today repeats matters I explained to you at that previous hearing.
Agreed summary of facts
Your offending
[7] On the morning of 5 October 2023, you were with Mr Davidson and Ms Gilbert. You have since explained you had been on night shift and that after night shifts you would usually have a beer, eat and go to sleep. On 5 October the three of you were at your address in Timaru drinking alcohol. Around 10:30 am you travelled to a liquor store to purchase more alcohol. Ms Gilbert drove at that time. You and Mr Davidson went into the store and purchased more alcohol.
[8]You then drove the three of you into the countryside.
[9] Around 11:40 am, you were travelling southeast on Springfield Road, Temuka. You overtook a tractor and trailer unit. You then drove straight through the intersection of Guild and Middleswamp Roads, which is controlled by a give way sign. The view on the eastern side of the road as you approached it was and is to the left of the intersection obscured by a large row of trees. After crossing the intersection, you lost control of your vehicle in shingle. You crashed the vehicle into a drainage ditch.
[10] The front seat passenger, Ms Gilbert, and the rear passenger, Mr Davidson, were both critically injured and they died at the scene. You were seriously injured. After being rescued you were flown to Christchurch Hospital. A blood sample was
taken. It returned a result of 187+ or - 9 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, more than twice the legal limit.
[11] The police serious crash unit attended the scene. After analysis of the scene, they estimated your vehicle was travelling at between 151 and 159 kilometres per hour at the time you braked.
[12] You have advised the police you had no memory of the crash or of that morning. Mr Norcross has confirmed that remains the position. The probation officer who prepared your pre-sentence report has confirmed, from inquiries she has made, that you suffered a traumatic brain injury, you have difficulties with memory and recall, and you struggle to process information. I am informed that you have been working for the past six months with a psychologist and an occupational therapist but have yet to undergo a full neuropsychological assessment.
Ms Gilbert and Mr Davidson
[13] I first acknowledge the deaths of Stephanie Gilbert and Shane Davidson. I acknowledge particularly the tragedy of their loss of life. As Shane’s family member, Kim, has explained in her statement to me, it is never right for a parent to lose a child as it goes against everything a parent can hope for.
[14] I acknowledge the statements that each of Shane’s and Stephanie’s family members have bravely provided this morning. The attendance of over 500 people at Stephanie’s funeral, as Monique has explained this morning, is testament to how many people Stephanie’s vibrant and caring personality made a difference in their lives. I acknowledge to you, the family and friends of both Stephanie and Shane, that your losses are irreparable and beyond measure. The Court recognises that. I thank each of you for all you have done in providing your information to the Court this morning. It informs the sentencing process, and I thank you particularly for your courage in providing each of those statements.
[15]But now, Mr Stockwell, I return to your circumstances.
Your personal circumstances
[16] The probation officer’s report tells me something of your background, beyond what has happened to you as a result of the accident. I also know about you from your criminal and traffic history.
[17]You are 48 years old.
[18] You have a concerning, although dated, history of drink driving with one conviction in 1994 and significantly two in 2003 which were charges of driving with excess blood alcohol and causing injury. A screening assessment completed in relation to you in 2003 reports that you stated that you had, while fixing other things that went wrong in your life, avoided addressing alcohol as your real problem. At that time, when you recognised you had nearly killed two people, you described it as your wake- up call.
[19] You attribute your clear criminal and traffic history record in the following two decades (2003 to 2023) as brought about through having stable employment and reducing your alcohol use. You explained to the Probation Officer that in the past two or three years before your offending you had “slipped back into it”, consuming alcohol almost daily, and despite your partner begging you to stop.
[20] You have now stated to the probation officer that you would like to live a lifestyle free of alcohol upon release, that you will be motivated to change, and you want to come out of prison a better person than when you went in. I observe that that is very similar sentiment to the way you have described your motivation to change in 2003.
[21] That said, I appreciate that you have a supportive partner who has indicated she will continue to support you throughout your prison sentence. She expects alcohol to form no part of your future.
[22] You have informed the probation officer you have no savings. There is therefore no realistic prospect of any payment of reparation.
Principles of sentencing
[23] As I previously explained to you Mr Stockwell, in sentencing you I must have regard to the purposes and principles of sentencing which are set out in the Sentencing Act 2002. These include the gravity of your offending, the degree of your culpability (of your blameworthiness) and the need to hold you accountable for the harm you have caused primarily through the deaths of Shane Davidson and Stephanie Gilbert. The sentence I impose must reinforce the message that serious motor manslaughter cases such as yours must be met by the imposition of a lengthy term of imprisonment to denounce the conduct you are involved in and to deter others from similar offending.
My approach to sentencing
[24] There are two steps to sentencing.1 The first step calculates, as I have discussed with you before, an adjusted starting point for your offending, that is a period of imprisonment, and it incorporates the aggravating and mitigating features of your offending. The second step incorporates looking at all aggravating and mitigating features that are personal to you that is beyond the incident itself together with any guilty plea credit which should be calculated and those are all done as a percentage of the starting point.2
Starting point
[25] In the sentencing indication I gave you, I reviewed the submissions made by Mr Norcross, and at that time by Ms McManus on behalf of the Crown. I will not repeat those submissions here as they are set out in the written record of my sentencing remarks which you have had.
[26]The starting point I adopted had regard to three aggravating features:
(a)your offending caused the death of two people;
1 Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296.
2 At [46].
(b)you drove at a time when you were very significantly over the blood alcohol limit; and
(c)you drove at an excessive speed, in a dangerous manner.
[27] I also took into account in setting the starting point that you had previously, but a relatively long time ago, caused injuries by driving with excess blood alcohol.
[28] For the reasons I set out in my sentencing indication, I started with a starting point of eight years and three months’ imprisonment on account of your charges.
[29] You have indicated through Mr Norcross today that you accept that there is no reason to depart from that starting point.
Mitigating features personal to you
Impact of your medical condition
[30] There are two matters as you know from counsel that I have to consider today. I will start with the impact of your medical condition. Mr Norcross has submitted that your sentence should be discounted on the basis of the injuries you sustained in the accident and the ongoing difficulties you will endure as a result of your brain injury. He submits also that your term of imprisonment will have a greater than normal deterrent effect on you because you will be serving it in your physical and mental state, without recall of the offending itself.
[31] I do not accept that there should be a separate credit or discount for the fact that you seriously injured yourself in the accident. Looked at another way, I could have considered it as an aggravating feature of your offending. You caused injury to one further person. But what I do accept is that with the conditions you now suffer, the effect of imprisonment upon you will be somewhat harsher than it would be for someone without similar disabilities.
[32]I consider an appropriate discount for that factor would be five per cent.
Your guilty plea
[33] At the time of your sentence indication, I indicated to you that I considered an appropriate credit for your guilty plea was 20 per cent. I did so in the face of submissions Mr Norcross made as to a full 25 per cent credit being more consistent with the philosophy behind sentence indications and early guilty pleas.
[34] For today’s hearing Mr Norcross has referred me to observations made in this Court in Mate v R.3 Hinton J there recognised that a sentence indication was part of a process embarked upon with the Crown aimed at accepting the guilt of the defendant, and did not preclude a full discount.
[35] I have further reviewed the history of your charges. I am not satisfied that you did enter a plea at the first available opportunity. There was some delay in the process. I therefore remain of the view that a discount of 20 per cent for your guilty plea is the appropriate discount.
Any other factors?
[36] Neither Mr Norcross nor Mr McRae has identified any other matters personal to you that should appropriately be taken into account in setting the final period of imprisonment.
End point sentence
[37] I therefore reach an end point sentence. From the starting point of eight years and three months, I must deduct 25 per cent (20 per cent for your guilty plea and 5 per cent on account of the disproportionate effects of imprisonment upon you). This produces a figure of six years and two months’ imprisonment.
Minimum period for imprisonment
[38] As I explained to you at the time of your sentencing indication, and as accepted by the Crown, I do not consider a minimum period of imprisonment is necessary for
3 Mate v R [2023] NZHC 257.
any of the purposes of the sentencing. The Parole Board will deal with matters relating to the appropriate time at which you will be released from Prison.
Disqualification
[39] Under s 80(1) of the Land Transport Act 1998, the Court may order you, upon conviction, to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence.
[40] Mr McRae has submitted you should be disqualified from driving for a period in the order of five years to commence upon your release from prison. Mr Norcross has made no specific submissions in relation to that figure.
[41] I consider that an effective period of five years’ disqualification is called for in the circumstances of your case. I refer particularly to your high blood alcohol level and the excessive speed. The period of disqualification must also have regard to your previous offending, particularly the 2003 offending.
[42] Any less than five years’ disqualification would be insufficient. That will be the period I impose.
Additional comments
[43] I address these additional comments to you, Mr Stockwell. You will be sentenced to a period of imprisonment because that is the only form of sentence appropriate for what you have done. You must be held truly accountable for the harm you have done. The sentence must properly denounce your conduct and must also serve to discourage others who would get into cars in the way you did and offend.
[44] Your medical condition may well mean that the steps you need to take towards rehabilitation will be more difficult for you than for others. That said, I urge you to take full advantage of the programmes that will be made available to you in prison. Despite what you said at the time of your 2003 offending, you clearly did not fully face up to the level of disaster that your conduct can cause through the combination of your drinking alcohol and driving. It must be absolutely clear to you now, at the age
of 48, that you have to make permanent decisions about your relationship with alcohol if something like this is not to happen again.
[45] You are fortunate to have the support of your partner and your family. You owe it to them to establish a respectful lifestyle. But most of all, you owe it to the people who are gathered in this room and to the memories of the two people whose lives you took.
[46] You had success in the period between 2003 to 2023 and it shows that you can have success in controlling your conduct for lengthy periods. What you must now do, and you will get assistance to do it, and I urge you to take advantage of it, is to stick to what you promised to do in 2003 and you cannot depart from it again.
Conclusion
[47]Mr Stockwell, would you please now stand.
[48] I sentence you on each of the charges of manslaughter to six years and two months’ imprisonment, to be served concurrently.
[49] Pursuant to s 80 of the Land Transport Act 1998, you are disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for five years from the date on which you are released from prison. I direct that a copy of these remarks be forwarded to the New Zealand Transport Authority as well as the Parole Board.
[50]Please stand down.
...................................................
Osborne J
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Timaru
Counsel:
P J Norcross, Barrister, Christchurch
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF T£fE JUDGMENT AND OF THE REQUEST FOR A SENTENCING INDICATION IN ANY NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTBER PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE DATABASE IS PROBIBITED BY SECTION 63 OF TRE CRIMINAL PROCEDU RE ACT 2011
UNTIL TBE DEFENDANT BAS BEEN SENTENCED OR TBE CHARGE DISMISSED. SEE
THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY
I TE KOTI MATUA O AOTEAROA
TE TIHI-O-MARU ROHE
TBEIRNG
CRI-2023-076-1231
[2024] NZHC 1155
MURRAY DEANE STOCKWELL
Hearing: 8 May 2024
Appearancey: S M H McManus for Crown
P Norcross for Defendant
Judgment: 8 May 2024
SENTENCING INDICATION OF OSBORNE J
[1]Mr Stockwell, I going to ask you to remain seated.
[2] The defendant, Murray Stockwell, is 47 years old. The deceased victims were Shane Davidson (who was 60 years old at the time of the accident) and Stephanie
R v STOCKWELL [2024] NZHC 1155 [8 May 2024]
Gilbert (who was 26). Mr Stockwell appears for sentence indication on two charges of manslaughter. '
[3] Mr Stockwell, you are at present in Court and I am giving this sentence indication to you. But 1 will be describing what happened in the third person.
The offending
[4] On the morning of 5 October 2023, Mr Stockwell was with Mr Davidson and Ms Gilbert. They were at Mr Stockwell’s address in Timaru drinking alcohol. At around 10.30 am, they travelled to a liquor store to purchase more alcohol. Ms Gilbert drove at that time. Mr Stockwell and Mr Davidson went into the store and purchased more alcohol.
[5]With Mr Stockwell now the driver, they then drove on into the countryside.
[6] At around 11.40 am, the vehicle was travelling southeast on Springfield Road, Temuka. Mr Stockwell overtook a tractor and trailer unit. He then drove straight through the intersection of Guild and Middleswamp Roads which is controlled by a give way sign. The view on the eastern side of the road as the vehicle approached it was and is to the left of this intersection obscured by a large row of trees. After crossing through the intersection, Mr Stockwell lost control of his vehicle in shingle. He crashed the vehicle into a drainage ditch.
[71 The front seat passenger, Ms Gilbert, and the rear passenger, Mr Davidson, were both critically injured and died at the scene. Mr Stockwell was seriously injured. After being rescued he was flown to Christchurch Hospital. A blood sample was taken at the hospital. It returned a result of 187 + or — 9 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, more than twice the legal limit.
[8] The Police Serious Crash Unit attended the scene. After analysis of the scene, they estimated Mr Stockwell’s vehicle was travelling at between 151 and 159 kilometres per hour before he braked.
Crimes Act 1961, s 171, I 60(2)(it) l50A and 177. Maximum penalty: life imprisonment.
[9] Mr Stockwell advised the police he had no memory of the crash or of that morning.
The victims
[10) I first acknowledge the death of Shane Davidson and Stephanie Gilbert. 1 acknowledge the tragedy of their loss of life.
[11] I also acknowledge the loss and grief suffered by their families and friends. The eight victim impact statements I have read clearly speak to the extent of their loss and suffering caused by your actions, Mr Stockwell.
Principles of sentencing
[12] Mr Stockwell, in sentencing you, I must have regard to the purposes and principles of sentencing which are set out in the Sentencing Act 2002. These include the gravity of your offending, the degree of your culpability and the need to hold you accountable for the harm you have caused including the deaths of these two victims. The sentence I must impose must reinforce the message that serious motor manslaughter cases such as yours must be met by the imposition of a lengthy term of imprisonment to denounce such conduct and to deter others from similar offending.
My appmach to sentencing
[13] The Court of Appeal’s decision in Moses v fi2 sets out a two-step methodology for sentencing. The first step calculates an adjusted starting point for the offending, that is a period of imprisonment and it incorporates the aggravating and mitigating features of the offending. The second step incorporates all aggravating and mitigating features personal to you together with any guilty plea credit which should be calculated
as a percentage of the adjusted starting point.3
Moses v fi [2020] NZCA 296.
' At [46].
Crown’s su Emissions
{ 14] Els McManus for the Crown has referred the Coun c›f‘ Appeal’s decision in Gcicituo v R. It is an analys is o1’ the sentencing reg ime in respect of cases where death has heen caused by dangerous or reckless driving or driving when the driver was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. That includes the more serious cases of manslaughter. The Court in Gacifuo identified aggravating and mitigating features relevant to sentcncing for such offending.'’
[15 ] M s McManus submits the following aggravating features of your of’fending arc rclevant:
(a) consumption of alcohol: your level was at least 1 78 mill igrafrls Of alcohol per 100 millilitrcs of blood;
(b)great ly excessive speed: you were travelling between 1 fi 1 and 159 kilometres per hour immediately before the crash;
(c) your previous convictions: you have a number of relevant previous convictions, including particularly two charges of driving with excess blood alcohol causing injury in relation to one incident in 2003: and
(d) outcome of offence: both of the passengers in your vehicle were critically injured and died.
[ 16] Counsel referred to several cases. I am not going to refer to all of them but the cases include fi v Tu’ and fi v Reihvna. The) were both referred to by the Court of
.Appcal in Coc’ifti‹i. I hey indicate that charges irrvol\' ing two deaths will result in a
Coci/iyo ›' F [2013] Nx.EA 234.
ioc'i/«o r k. above n 4. at [25]. C iting /t i No.s» ell [1984] 3 A I I ER 353 t Crim App) at 357 and ñ
[I7) Ms McManus referred also to P v Guest as a oa6e where one death was caused. Mr Guest had a not-dissimilar blood alcohol level to yours, 192 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. But, unlike here, there had hegn a persistent course of bad driving and the defendant in Guest disregarded warnings from passengers. A starting point of eight years was considered appropriate in that case.
[18] Ms McManus also referred me to B v Gosling.’ Like you, Mr Gosling was travelling at high speeds in a rural area. His speed (at 236 lonph) was much higher. On the other hand, your blood alcohol level at 187 milligmrns of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood was significantly higher than Mr Gosling’s which had been measured at 99 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. A starting point of six years and three months’ imprisonment was set in Gosling.
I! 81 Ms McManus also referred to fl v Hoskins. " That case involved a starting point of five and a half years’ imprisonment, where the defendant drove erratically under the influence of aioohol at speeds between 84 and 104 kmph in a 70 kinph zone. Mr Hoskings killed a pedestrian and her dog. A starting point of seven years’ imprisonment would have been set but for the defendant’s severe dyslexia.
[20] Ms McManus identifies your previous convictions as being relevant aggravating features, but she recognises that the adjustment for that must take into account the fact that they date back to 2003.
[21] Ms McManus submits in all those circumstances that there should be a starting point in the region of eight years and six months to nine years’ imprisonment.
° s v p»,g», HC \vn,«g«nui CRI-20i0-083-27i3, s May 20I i.
Credits
[22] Ms McManus recognised that you should receive a credit of between 20 and 25 per cent if you enter guilty pleas. The Crown is unaware of any other mitigating features at this stage.
Additional orders sought
[23] Ms McManus referred to the possibility of a period of disqualification upon conviction. ' ' She observes that the disqualification is forward looking and preventative.
Defendant’s submissions
Starting point
[24] Mr Norcross on your behalf referred to fi v Thomas' and to the case of Reihana," which I mentioned. In both cases there were starting points of eight years and eight and a half years respectively. Mr Thomas caused one death, Mr Reihana
[25] Mr Norcross submits that, while a single death resulted in Thomas, the starting point was increased on account of Mr Thomas’s failure to stop for police, his particularly dangerous driving, and his disregard for the safety of others including his own passengers. Mr Thomas’s breath alcohol read 501 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath, against the limit of 250 micrograms. Mr Norcross notes that Mr Thomas was unlicensed and had only been released from prison on the day of his offending.
[26J In the case of Relhana, Mr Norcross notes the offending was aggravated by the fact the defendant there was driving while unlicensed and against the express wishes of the victims who pleaded with him to slow down. The driving I recognise in Reihana was particularly bad and of a dangerous nature.
Sentencing Act 2002, s 125(2).
I2 fi v Zfiompi [2018] NZHC 819.
R v Reihana, above n 7.
[27] Mr NorcrosS submits that both Thomas and Reihana had more aggravating features than what is alleged against you. He submits the court should fix a starting point of eight years’ imprisonment for your offending.
Credits
[28] Mr Norcross also submits you should receive a full 25 per cent — the maximum credit of early guilty pleas. The sentence indication procedure has not served to prolong proceedings or inconvenience others involved in his submission. Rather, it maximises the prospect of early resolution and avoid the personal and financial costs associated with proceeding to trial. Mr Norcross submits that a defendant who pleads guilty after a sentence indication would be inappropriately penalised for utilising a procedure which Parliament enacted in order to promote early resolution.
My analysis
[29] I must now set a starting point for your offending. In my view the relevant aggravating features are:
(a) your offending caused the death of two people;
(b) you drove at a time you were very significantly over the blood alcohol limit; and
(c) you drove at excessive speed, in a dangerous manner.
[30] I will also take into account in setting the starting point that you have previously, but a relatively long time ago, caused injuries by driving with excess blood alcohol.
[31] Great fault will not always result in serious injury or death. On the other hand, less risky driving will sometimes cause very serious injury or death. As the cases referred to by counsel show, the degree of bad driving and the number of lives lost
will vary from case to case. In your case, the fact that two lives were lost as a result of the drunk driving must be properly accounted for in the starting point.
[32] The aggravating features of your offending combine to place it towards the higher end when compared with the cases I have referred to. I consider your culpability falls marginally short of that in fiei8ana.
[33] Your offending is significantly more serious than that of the defendant in
Gosling who had a starting poiyt of six years and three months’ imprisonment.
[34] To me, the nose of closest similarity to yours iS Guest where the defendant was given a starting point of eight years.
[35] His driving was worse with persistently higher speeds, disregard of warnings, and he had a marginally higher blood alcohol level, but the consequences of your driving were markedly worse. You also have a record of similar offending.
[36] In the circumstances, 1 consider a starting point of eight years and three months’ imprisonment is appropriate on your charges. This accounts for the high alcohol reading, the excessive speed, the tragic outcome of two deaths and the relationship of these charges to your previous convictions.
Adjusting the starting point for your guilty plea
[37] As I have discussed, Mr Norcross referred to the fact that sentence indications are designed to maximise the prospect of early resolution. He has submitted, I recognise forcefully, that it might be said to be contrary to the philosophy behind sentence indications that a full 25 per cent credit is not made available in circumstances where, even before you have pleaded, you have very promptly sought the sentence indication. He submits that it is therefore appropriate that you receive the maximum available credit of 25 per cent in the event you plead guilty to these two charges. Ms McManus, on the other hand as I have said submits that something in the order of 20 to 25 per cent may be more appropriate as a credit.
[38] I do recognise that you requested this sentence indication at a very early stage. That said, it was equally open to you to then enter a guilty plea at that point and to thus eliminate this additional step and the involvement of your victims in what amounts to an additional hearing.
[39] The Supreme Court in Hessell v R recorded that o// circumstances in which a plea is entered must be addressed, not merely the timing."
[40] Having regard to what would be the prompt timing of your guilty plea but also the fact it will be made, if made, following the sentence indication hearing, I consider the appropriate credit for your guilty plea if you do so is 20 per cent.
End point sentence
[41] As counsel have both indicated, it is not possible in the context of this sentence indication hearing where there is no pre-sentence report available to identify whether you may have other credits available to you. If you accept my sentence indication, it will then be for Mr Norcross at your sentencing to make submissions as to any further credits that become available.
[42] What I must therefore indicate to you at this point, on the basis of the matters I have referred to is that should there be no other mitigating factors brought into account, I would sentence you to six years and seven months’ imprisonment — that is, 20 per cent deducted from the starting point of eight years and three months.
Minimum period of imprisonment
[43] If you accept the sentencing indication, it will mean that a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) might be imposed. You have heard my exchange with Ms McManus who indicated the Crown does not consider an MPI would be necessary for any of the purposes of sentencing. That is also my assessment on the facts relating to you and your offending.
' • i-tessell v s [2010) NZSC 135 at {51]. " Sentencing Act, s 86.
[44] I therefore indicate that, should you accept the sentence indication I am giving yOu, it is not my intentiOH to impose an MPI.
Disqualification
[45] The charges you face relate to road safety. Under s 80(1) of the Land Transport Act 1998 the Court may order you, if convicted, to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence.
[46] I did not understand Mr Norcross to seek an indication of what the Court might consider an appropriate period of disqualification. lt iS appropriate that the period of disqualification be properly considered at any sentencing hearing once full submissions have been made in that regard.
[47] What I do indicate to you however, having regard to the consequences of your driving and the periods of disqualification you have previously served, your disqualification is likely to be for a very significant period of years, to run both through the period of imprisonment and afterwards.
Sentence indication
[48] The sentence indication I give you on each of your two charges is a sentence of six years and seven months’ imprisonment. Those sentences would be served concurrently, that is to say the total period of imprisonment would be one of six years and seven months’ imprisonment.
[49] This indication will be open for you to accept until 12 noon, 15 May 2024, whereupon it will expire if you have not accepted it.
Osborne J
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Timaru
Copy to: P Norcross, Barrister, Christchurch