R v Taylor - [2024] NZHC 1612

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2023-012-1083

[2024] NZHC 1612

THE KING

v

ROBERT FRANCIS TAYLOR

Hearing: 18 June 2024

Appearances:

R D Smith for Crown

J A Westgate for Defendant

Judgment:

18 June 2024

SENTENCING NOTES OF DUNNINGHAM J

Charges

[1] Robert Francis Taylor, you are for sentence today on one charge of burglary1 and one charge of manslaughter,2 having pleaded guilty to both charges.

Facts of the offending

[2] The facts of the offending can be summarised as follows. You had been socialising and drinking on the evening of Saturday 26 May 2023. Shortly after 1 am in the morning of 27 May 2023 you, along with four friends, drove to a bottle store in Dunedin in a vehicle that had previously been stolen and which had stolen registration

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 231, maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
2 Sections 160 171 and 177, maximum penalty life imprisonment.

R v TAYLOR [2024] NZHC 1612 [18 June 2024]

plates fixed to it. You and others in the group had decided to burgle the bottle store to obtain more alcohol. It seems, though, that you acknowledge that the victim, your friend Michael McClelland, was not interested in burgling the bottle store, and he simply wanted to be dropped home.

[3] Seven crates of beer were taken during the burglary, valued at $370. However, the burglary activated an alarm, and a member of the public also heard the burglary occurring and called the police. When your group was confronted by this member of the public, you all went back to the vehicle.

[4] With the car headlights turned off, you then drove the group away from the bottle store with the crates of beer. A police unit saw the vehicle and activated blue and red flashing lights signalling for you to stop. However, you accelerated away from the police driving dangerously around the residential streets in Dunedin attempting to evade them.

[5] You narrowly missed colliding with a member of the public’s vehicle at one intersection when you drifted across the lane. You then ignored a give way sign at an intersection that crosses a main thoroughfare and travelled through the intersection at speed. You then continued travelling at speed down Melbourne Street which is, in part, a one-way street which narrows considerably and has a gentle raised chicane to slow traffic at the approach to an intersection which is controlled by a stop sign. You approached the intersection at speed and made no attempt to stop. You struck the curb of the chicane, causing you to lose control of the vehicle which spun clockwise before hitting a power pole and concrete wall. The vehicle’s speed was calculated at being between 86 and 92 kms per hour as it travelled through a clockwise yaw, in other words, as it was moving sideways, immediately before the collision.

[6] Mr McClelland was in the rear left passenger seat and died…

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 Taylor

Details

AGLC: R v Taylor [2024] NZHC 1612
Case: [2024] NZHC 1612
Decision Date: 18 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robert Francis Taylor was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand for one charge of burglary and one charge of manslaughter, having pleaded guilty to both charges. The defendant, under the influence of alcohol, drove recklessly in a stolen vehicle and caused a fatal crash that killed his friend Michael McClelland. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence that reflected the seriousness of the charges and the aggravating and mitigating factors present in the case.

The court identified several aggravating factors, including the defendant's significant alcohol consumption, reckless and dangerous driving, evasion of police, and the fact that the offending resulted in the death of a passenger and injuries to others. The court also noted the defendant's prior convictions for similar driving-related offences. Considering these factors, the starting point for the manslaughter charge was set at seven and a half years. The burglary charge, while less serious, led to an uplift of six months, bringing the total starting point to seven and a half years. The court also imposed a five percent uplift for the defendant's criminal history.

In terms of mitigating factors, the court acknowledged the defendant's guilty plea, participation in restorative justice, and genuine remorse. The defendant also showed rehabilitative potential, particularly his commitment to addressing his alcohol issues. The court granted a 20 percent discount for the guilty plea, a 10 percent discount for remorse and rehabilitative potential, and an additional 10 percent discount for background factors that contributed to the offending. This resulted in a total discount of 40 percent from the starting point.

The court sentenced the defendant to four years and ten months for manslaughter, to be served concurrently with a six-month sentence for burglary. The defendant was also disqualified from driving for four years upon release. The court granted an order to suppress the identity of the police officers involved in the pursuit, as publication would cause them undue hardship.

In conclusion, the defendant received a sentence of four years and ten months for manslaughter, a concurrent six-month sentence for burglary, and a four-year driving disqualification. The court considered both the aggravating and mitigating factors in determining the appropriate sentence, focusing on the defendant's culpability, the harm caused, and his potential for rehabilitation.

Orders