R v Taylor - [2023] NZHC 3181

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2023-012-1083

[2023] NZHC 3181

THE KING

v

ROBERT FRANCIS TAYLOR

Hearing: 3 October 2023

Appearances:

R D Smith for the Crown

J A Westgate for the Defendant

Judgment:

10 November 2023

JUDGMENT OF HARLAND J

Introduction

[1] On 27 May 2023, a car driven by Robert Taylor was involved in an accident, as a result of which his friend Michael McClelland died. Mr Taylor was subsequently charged with four charges, two of which are the subject of this judgment.1 The first charge alleges driving with excess blood alcohol causing Mr McClelland’s death2 and the other alleges manslaughter.3 Neither are laid as alternatives.

1      The remaining charges comprise a charge of burglary and another of driving dangerously causing injury to another occupant of the vehicle.
2      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 61(1)(b) and 61(3AA); maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $10,000 and disqualification for one year or more.
3      Crimes Act 1961, ss 171, 160(2)(a) and 177; maximum penalty life imprisonment.

R v TAYLOR [2023] NZHC 3181 [10 November 2023]

[2] Mr Taylor has purportedly pleaded guilty to the excess blood alcohol charge, which I will refer to in this judgment as “the EBA charge”. He applies to dismiss or stay the manslaughter charge under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (CPA) or in the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.

[3] The Crown opposes and intends to apply to amend the EBA charge to record that it is an alternative to the manslaughter charge.

[4] I have decided to dismiss Mr Taylor’s application. This judgment sets out my reasons for doing so.

The factual narrative

[5] The background to the charges is set out in a Police Summary of Facts. For this reason, the following facts are alleged only and should be read in that context.

[6] On Saturday 26 May 2023, Mr Taylor, the deceased and three others were together and had been drinking. They ran out of alcohol and decided to go to the Bottle-O liquor store at Hillside Road, Dunedin to steal some alcohol. Mr Taylor drove the group to the Bottle-O liquor store in a stolen vehicle which had stolen registration plates attached to it. This vehicle had been stolen from a Dunedin address on 21 April 2023. Mr Taylor remained in the vehicle while others are alleged to have stolen crates of beer from the liquor store, in the process activating the burglar alarm. A member of the public confronted one of those who was alleged to have taken the alcohol and called the Police.

[7] Mr Taylor, who had turned the vehicle lights off while the burglary was occurring, continued to drive the vehicle with the headlights off, turning into Hillside Road. A Police patrol observed the vehicle and activated its blue and red flashing lights.

[8] Mr Taylor failed to stop and accelerated away from the Police, travelling through a number…

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 [2023] NZHC 3181
Case: [2023] NZHC 3181
Decision Date: 10 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Taylor involved Robert Taylor who faced multiple charges, including excess blood alcohol causing death and manslaughter, following a fatal car accident in which his friend Michael McClelland died. Taylor applied to dismiss or stay the manslaughter charge under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (CPA) or in the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The Crown opposed the application and intended to amend the excess blood alcohol charge (EBA charge) to record it as an alternative to the manslaughter charge. The court dismissed Taylor’s application, finding that the District Court should not have exercised its discretion to refuse Taylor’s plea to the EBA charge. However, it was open to the Judge, if he had taken the plea, to not enter a conviction pursuant to s 114 of the CPA in relation to it. The court concluded that the EBA charge is a permissible alternative to the charge of manslaughter, and the Crown’s ability to amend the EBA charge as of right stood. Consequently, Taylor’s application for stay of the manslaughter charge and his application under s 147 were dismissed.

Orders