R v Tranter
[2020] NZHC 884
•1 May 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE
CRI-2018-009-004865
[2020] NZHC 884
THE QUEEN v
RICHARD ROBERT TRANTER
Hearing: 1 May 2020 Appearances:
C J Boshier for the Crown
A J D Bamford and E Riddell for the Defendant
Sentence:
1 May 2020
SENTENCING NOTES OF WYLIE J
Solicitors/counsel:
Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch Bamford Law/E J Riddell, Nelson
R v TRANTER [2020] NZHC 884 [1 May 2020]
Introduction
[1] Mr Tranter, you appear for sentence today after you were found guilty following a trial by jury of manslaughter and after you pleaded guilty to a charge of driving with excess blood alcohol. The maximum sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment; for a first or second offence of driving with excess blood alcohol the maximum penalty is three months imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $4,500.00. In addition, I must order that you be disqualified from driving.
[2] Unfortunately, your sentencing has been delayed because of the COVID-19 crisis. You are being sentenced by video link – that is not ideal, but it has resulted in the sentencing being able to proceed today.
Relevant facts
[3] At approximately 10:30 pm on Tuesday the 2nd of January 2018, you were the driver of a BMW motor vehicle travelling south on Russley Road, Christchurch.
[4] The section of Russley Road that you were travelling on is designated as part of State Highway 1. It is in good condition and it has four lanes – two going in each direction. They are divided by a raised centre barrier. The posted speed limit is 80 kph, dropping to 60 kph where the road enters a residential area close to where it intersects with Yaldhurst Road. The weather was cool but fine and the lighting was good.
[5] Your car should not have been on the road at all. It was unregistered and unwarranted. The rear tyres were a mismatch. Further they were directional tyres and they had been wrongly fitted, with the result that the tread on each was going in the wrong direction. The rear brake pads were worn and there was a warning light on your dashboard showing this at the relevant time.
[6] You should not have been driving. You had been drinking alcohol. Analysis of your blood showed that you had 112 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. This was well above the legal limit – it is 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100
millilitres of blood for an infringement notice and 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood for an offence.
[7] The evidence at your trial suggested that you were not wearing a seat belt at the time. Further you must have chosen to ignore the brake warning light showing on your dashboard. You had deactivated two of the vehicle’s safety systems – namely the ABS brakes and the dynamic stability control system. Again, there were warning lights on your dashboard showing that these systems had been disabled.
[8] Before you turned into Russley Road, you went around the Russley Road/Harewood Road roundabout three and a half times. You then accelerated down Russley Road in a southerly direction.
[9] You reached a speed of somewhere between 178 and 186 kph. You were aware of this at the time. You were videoing your driving with your cellphone as you sped down Russley Road. You recorded your own commentary on this footage. You said that you were doing 180 kph.
[10] You undertook two vehicles that were also heading south. They were both travelling in the outside or left lane but you flew past them and cut in on them by driving on the outside shoulder of the road. The cellphone footage made for chilling viewing. It was clear from your commentary that you had absolutely no regard for the safety of other road users – you said on the footage:
… should we play some games, let’s go around these [I interpolate – other road users], wooo … yes. I’m having a good night. I don’t give a fuck in the world. How about that y’all. I think I’m doing 180, I’m not quite sure. It’s alright, we’ll still pass people. Not a care in the world. I don’t give a fuck, why don’t just take the left-hand side, already, three, two, one, wooo. Fuck you. Not a care in the fucking world. Nothing left to worry about nigger.
You were deliberately courting the obvious risks associated with your grossly irresponsible driving.
[11] As noted, the posted speed limit on Russley Road drops to 60 kph when it enters a residential area near the intersection with Yaldhurst Road. You did not slow
down. Indeed, you continued filming your driving for another eight seconds after passing the 60 kph sign.
[12] The victim – Jack Munro – was driving in a westerly direction along Bentley Street in the residential area. He turned left at a give-way sign into the left-hand lane of Russley Road and started to proceed down Russley Road in a southerly direction. You were approaching at approximately 180 kph. When you stopped filming your driving – probably after dropping your cellphone – you were only about 90 to 100 metres from the Bentley Street intersection. You hadn’t slowed down appreciably. It was simply too late for you to do anything to avoid the inevitable collision. The evidence suggested that at best your reaction time would have been about 1.5 seconds and, at 180 kph, a collision could not be avoided. There was no evidence to suggest that you tried to brake, although it appears that you may have attempted to turn a little to the right in an endeavour to avoid Mr Munro’s car. You collided with the rear of Mr Munro’s car, causing it to collide with another car that was parked on the side of Russley Road. Your vehicle spun out of control, before finally coming to a halt some distance further south on Russley Road.
[13] Mr Munro suffered significant injuries. He was extracted from his car and taken to hospital. He died of his injuries the following day.
[14] You were spoken to by the Police a few days later. You lied in the course of your interview, claiming that you had reduced your speed when you entered the 60 kph posted area and that you were doing about 70 kph at the time, that Mr Munro just turned out in front of you, that you braked but that you were unable to avoid the collision, that you hadn’t had too much to drink on the night, and that you hadn’t used your cellphone on the night. Indeed, you claimed that you had a new cellphone. All of these lies were told in a clear attempt to minimise your culpability.
The reports
[15]I have received various reports in relation to you.
[16]First, I have received a Provision of Advice to Courts report. It records that:
(a)You are a 28-year-old Pākehā. You are from Christchurch and at the time of the offending you were living with an ex-partner. You have one biological child and two step-children. You report that you have the support of your father but that you don’t see “eye to eye” with him when you are in prison and that you have not had recent contact with him.
(b)You left school at the age of 15 years and you have generally been in employment when you have not been in custody.
(c)You have a significant criminal record. You have amassed in total some 43 convictions over the period 2008 to 2020. Your offending includes driving related offending, drug related offending, the possession of weapons, breaches of bail, receiving, breach of community work orders, intentional damage, contravening protection orders, being unlawfully in an enclosed yard and breach of post detention conditions. You have been sentenced to imprisonment on a number of occasions – most recently before the present offending on 18 October 2019 for a month. The longest period of imprisonment to which you have previously been sentenced was seven months.
(d)You have a history of drug abuse and you have major problems with alcohol dependency. You report typically drinking an 18 pack of bourbon every evening over the last year or two, although you claim that you always feel sober even though you know you could not be. You also claim that you were on medication for depression at the time.
The report writer identified your offending-supportive attitudes, your alcohol use and your relationship difficulties as contributing to your offending. The writer found it difficult to gauge your remorse, noting that you attempted to justify your behaviour and that you displayed minimal emotion when discussing what had occurred. It was suggested that this may have been because you did not want to discuss your feelings. You apparently wished to end your own life after the offending and both your former and current partners say that the impact of the offending on you has been significant.
You did claim that you would have liked to engage in a restorative justice conference but that was taken no further.
[17] Secondly, I have received an Alcohol and Other Drugs Assessment report. It is limited, because the author was only able to assess you by telephone. The author records:
(a)You tried alcohol in your mid-teens, and that you have since become alcohol dependent. You used alcohol weekly, usually at the weekends. During periods of unemployment, you were drinking daily. Your use of alcohol became heavy following the break up of a long-term relationship. You were consuming up to 20 plus standard drinks a day. You told the report writer that you tried to reduce your dependency on alcohol, but you have been unable to do so.
(b)You first tried methamphetamine in 2016/2017, after the break-up of one of your relationships. You smoked methamphetamine daily, and often used half a gram. You told the assessor that you do not want to stop using the drug and that you had never tried to do so.
(c)At the time of your offending, you had been using alcohol and methamphetamine, because you had found out that your partner was cheating on you. You said that you were on your way to see a friend when the accident occurred.
(d)Your mental health appears to have fluctuated since you have been on remand in prison.
(e)It is likely that you will be unable to abstain from alcohol and drugs when you are released from prison. You want to be referred to some form of support on release.
[18] I have also received a report from Odyssey House. The report writer again spoke to you by telephone. The report writer confirmed that you appear to meet the
criteria for alcohol and methamphetamine dependence and recorded your interest in undergoing residential treatment options on release. You apparently agreed with the report writer that the optimum solution for you would be a referral to the Bridge Programme, which is an eight-week residential programme held in Christchurch. It was also recommended that you should engage in a programme called “Driving Change” when you are ultimately released.
[19] More recently, I have received confirmation from Odyssey House that you have been deemed suitable for admission to their adult residential programme.
[20] Finally, I have received a report from Associate Professor Dr Simon Adamson. It is the fullest report. Dr Adamson interviewed you, and spoke to your father and your current and previous partners. He discusses your previous history in some detail. He records that your mother told your father that he should leave the family home with you when you were one or two months old, and that your mother has had very little contact with you since. You were raised by your father until your early teens, when you moved out to stay with other families, because you were getting into trouble with your father and his new partner. It is clear from the report that you started getting into trouble at a relatively early age, for example, that you crashed a stolen car when you were aged 14. You had little supervision as a child, and spent little time with your peers, spending more time in the company of adults and older children. You have been in some personal relationships, but your drinking and more recently drug taking has resulted in those relationships coming to an end. You and one of your earlier partners have a daughter.
[21] You have no medical history of note, and there is no history of mental health difficulties in your family insofar as you are aware.
[22] You first started drinking at the age of 15, and your reliance on alcohol has steadily increased over the years. It has led to conflict with others, who have stated that you become obnoxious and arrogant when you are drinking. Dr Adamson recorded that you have acquired a significant tolerance to the effects of alcohol. You first used methamphetamine at the age of 25 or 26. When your first relationship broke up, your use of methamphetamine escalated, although your use of the drug came to an
end in June 2018, when you received a custodial sentence. When you were released, your use resumed. Dr Adamson stated that you have also acquired a significant tolerance to the effects of methamphetamine. Your father takes the view that it has led to you becoming untrustworthy, and that as a result he cannot believe what you say, and he will not allow you to borrow his car.
[23] You attempted suicide in 2012, but it appears to have been an isolated incident. Subsequent checks have found no evidence of any major mental disturbance. You have reported that you experience depression. Dr Adamson noted that you currently feel, and I quote, “a bit broken and destroyed inside”.
[24] It was Dr Adamson’s opinion that your abandonment by your mother when you were an infant, and your early childhood, have resulted in poor socialisation skills and low self-esteem. He considered that it is unsurprising that you struggle to achieve stable and intimate adult relationships. He considered it predictable that you respond to difficulties by becoming highly distressed and resorting to substance abuse. He considered that you meet the diagnostic criteria for severe alcohol use disorder, and for severe methamphetamine use disorder. He also considered that your reported pattern of mood disturbance is consistent with a diagnosis of a moderate major depressive order, but that there is an alternative diagnosis of substance induced depressive disorder. He noted that your addiction is a chronic and relapsing condition, and he recommended a comprehensive residential therapeutic programme in the community as the most appropriate intervention for you. He specifically referred to the Odyssey House Adult Residential Programme, and ventured the opinion that it would be well suited for your rehabilitation. He also noted that Odyssey House provides a Driving Change Programme for recidivist impaired and disqualified drivers, which he thought would be of benefit to you.
Letters
[25] I have received letters from both your previous partner and your current partner. Both of them say that you have been a good father figure, and that you have been supportive of them. They both say that you are remorseful for what occurred in January 2018. Your current partner notes the effect that your absence is having on
your daughter, and the pain she is going through. She considers that you have learnt from the bad decisions you have made in the past, and that you want to change your life around.
[26] I have received a copy of a letter you have written to the Munro family. In it you claim to have remorse for your offending and say that you wish you could turn the clock back.
Victim Impact Statements
[27] I have received victim impact statements from Mr Munro’s father, and from his mother, and from his sister. Those statements were presented orally to me today.
[28] Mr and Mrs Munro senior heard the crash. They describe the phone call a short time later telling them that their son had been involved, that he was in the emergency department at hospital and that he was in a serious condition. They describe sitting with him in the intensive care unit for some hours before he passed away. They explain how their son’s death has crushed them, how they have been unable to function, and how they have struggled to eat and sleep. Mrs Munro felt compelled to forgo her full- time employment. Mr Munro senior was shattered. They have sold their house, because they can no longer bear to live in Christchurch. As a result, Mr Munro senior has had to resign from a senior hospital role that he had. This has ended his career. Mr and Mrs Munro also describe the effect that their son’s death has had on their family. Mrs Munro sums up the position by saying that the family is, and I quote, “forever broken”. Both say that the sadness they will carry with them for the rest of their lives is enormous and that they and their family will never be the same.
[29] Mr Munro’s sister describes her pain in observing her parents’ grief, and in losing her brother who she was very close to. She also describes her own pain in having lost her brother who was very close to her. She describes being broken without her brother.
[30] The damage and devastation caused by your offending was plain and obvious from the eloquent and heartfelt statements made to me today by Mr and Mrs Munro and by Mr Munro’s sister. They have the Court’s sympathy.
Submissions
[31] Ms Boshier, for the Crown, refers to the purposes and principles of sentencing, and takes as the lead offence the manslaughter conviction. She suggests that driving with excess blood alcohol should be taken into account as an aggravating feature of that offending. She discussed various relevant authorities, and the aggravating features of your offending. She submitted that a starting point of six and a half to seven years’ imprisonment is available to the Court, and that that starting point should be uplifted by 12 to 18 months given your relevant previous convictions. She also submitted that a further uplift is required given your actions which substantially delayed the trial, and that a minimum period of imprisonment is also warranted. She noted that your motor vehicle has been destroyed, but sought that you should be disqualified from driving, pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Sentencing Act 2002.
[32] Mr Bamford noted that you held a full driver’s licence at the time. He suggested that your aggressive driving was for a relatively limited period. He accepted that your grossly excessive speed caused the crash, but suggested that your speed was dropping after you entered the 60 kph hour zone. He also noted that there was no evidence that your excessive blood alcohol was directly causative of the crash. Mr Bamford referred to like cases, and endeavoured to distinguish some of the cases relied on by the Crown. He submitted that the appropriate starting point for your offending is in the vicinity of five years’ imprisonment. He accepted that an uplift for previous convictions is appropriate, but suggested that it should be limited to six months. He accepted that you delayed the trial and that this has undoubtedly had an adverse effect on Mr Munro’s family. He suggested, however, that that could be dealt with by declining to grant you any discount for time spent on electronically monitored bail. He also referred to Dr Adamson’s report and submitted that a reduction in sentence of 20 per cent is justified based on your personal circumstances and given your desire to rehabilitate.1 He argued that a minimum period of imprisonment was unnecessary, noting that the protection of the community can be achieved by disqualifying you from driving, and that in any event, you will not be granted parole until you have undertaken
1 Referring to Solicitor-General v Heta [2019] 2 NZLR 241 (HC) and Miller v R [2020] NZCA 131.
appropriate programmes whilst in prison. Mr Bamford expressed on your behalf and on your instructions, your sorrow for what occurred and your self-loathing as a result.
Principles and Purposes of Sentencing
[33] In sentencing you, I have considered the principles set out in ss 7 and 8 of the Sentencing Act. I have had regard to the need to hold you accountable for your offending, the need to promote in you a sense of responsibility for and an acknowledgment of that offending, and the need to denounce the conduct in which you were involved. I have also been mindful of the need to deter others from committing the same or similar offences. This is particularly important in this case – Christchurch, along with many other cities in this country, sadly has far too many irresponsible drivers who seem to think it is their right to drive as they see fit without a thought for other road users. I have taken into account the gravity of the offending with which you were involved, including your culpability. Both were high. I have considered the general desirability of consistency of appropriate sentencing levels between similar offenders committing similar offences. I have also considered the various matters set out in s 9 of the Act.
Analysis
[34] The lead offence is manslaughter. The excess blood alcohol offence is an aggravating feature of the manslaughter. There is no tariff case for manslaughter because each case is highly fact specific. The Court of Appeal has however reviewed relevant authorities and identified common aggravating features which point to a driver’s culpability in serious cases charged under the Land Transport Act 1998 or in motor manslaughter cases charged under the Crimes Act 1961.2 Sentencing generally reflects the aggravating features involved in any given case.
[35] A number of the aggravating factors which were identified by the Court of Appeal, are present in your case:
2 Gacitua v R [2013] NZCA 234 at [39].
(a)you had been consuming alcohol and were well over the legal limit for driving;
(b)you were driving at a grossly excessive speed and in a residential area;
(c)your driving was very bad. You travelled some seven kilometres from the roundabout to the site of the crash. Your bad driving was prolonged and it was deliberate;
(d)your driving was aggressive. You undertook and cut in front of other vehicles in a cavalier and highly dangerous way;
(e)you were driving while your attention was avoidably distracted. You were filming your driving on your cellphone. You can only have had one hand on the steering wheel;
(f)you have a large number of previous convictions for driving offences;
(g)your driving resulted in the death of Mr Munro; and
(h)you falsely claimed that Mr Munro was at least in part responsible and you lied in an attempt to minimise your involvement.
[36] There are additional aggravating factors in your case not expressly referred to by the Court of Appeal. First, your car was poorly maintained. It did not have a current warrant of fitness. It was unregistered. I accept that these matters did not contribute to the accident, but the fact remains that both you and your vehicle should not have been on the road. Secondly, you had turned off the car’s safety features. This can only have been an intentional act. Thirdly, you ignored warning lights clearly visible on your car’s dashboard. Fourthly, and as is clear from your cellphone commentary, you were deliberately courting the obvious risks associated with your horrendous driving. You seemed to think that you were invincible.
[37] I have considered other motor manslaughter cases to get a feel for appropriate sentences in such cases and to ensure that the sentence I impose on you is consistent
with the sentences imposed on like offenders in broadly similar circumstances.3 Starting points for broadly similar offending have ranged from five years’ imprisonment to an assumed nine years’ imprisonment. The most common starting point has been in the range of five and six months’ imprisonment to six years and six months’ imprisonment. Each case however turns very much on its own facts.
[38] Having considered all relevant factors, I have reached the view that the starting point sentence in your case should be seven years’ imprisonment. I acknowledge that this is towards the top of the available range of sentences imposed for such offending, but I find it hard to imagine that there could have been very much worse offending of this type or that your culpability could have been much higher. Your blood alcohol level could have been higher, you could have had other passengers in your car and more people could have been killed or injured but, apart from these matters, your driving was, in my view, as bad as it gets. It falls to be considered at the most serious level and this heightens the need for denunciation and deterrence.4
[39]I now turn to consider aggravating and mitigating factors personal to you.
3 R v Barclay [2007] BCL 688 (HC) – excessive speed, crossed the centre line, driver of other vehicle killed and passenger seriously injured. Poor driving of short duration. Starting point of five and a half years to six years – uplift to seven and a half years because of poor driving history and because false story at the scene to avoid detection; R v McElvie CA372/97, 25 November 1997, Court of Appeal upheld an end sentence of eight years’ imprisonment with an assumed starting point of nine years. Excessive blood alcohol, excessive speed, lost control of vehicle, one person killed and driver of other vehicle badly hurt. Previous convictions taken into account when setting the starting point; R v Te Maari HC Nelson CRI-2011-042-1451, 22 June 2011 – driving while disqualified, alcohol, excessive speed, drifting, death and serious injuries to another person
– seven years and six months; R v Hoskins HC Wanganui CRI-2010-083-2713, 9 May 2011 – alcohol, dangerous manoeuvres, excessive speed, breach of license terms, death and failure to stop
– five and half years, could have been up to 18 months higher but for fact defendant suffered from severe dyslexia; R v Vanstone HC Hamilton CRI-2010-068-603, 19 April 2011 – excessive speed, on wrong side of road, ignored warnings to slow down, excessive blood alcohol, death resulting – five years, one year uplift for previous convictions; Gacitua v R, above n 2 – six to six and a half years where alcohol an aggravating feature and a death resulted – at [38]; R v McGrath [2014] NZHC 1583 – defendant had been drinking, conducted several dangerous manoeuvres, excessive speed in built up area, refused to stop, lost control of vehicle, passenger killed and another person suffered serious injuries, defendant on a learner license. Starting point of seven years’ imprisonment, a five month uplift for two relevant previous convictions; R v Green [2016] NZHC 513 – excessive speed, deliberate running down, one person killed, fled from scene – six years and six months, 18 month uplift for poor driving record; R v Millar [2018] NZHC 625 – joyriding, alcohol, excessive speed, dangerous manoeuvres, death and injuries to others – starting point of six and a half years – not reduced on appeal; Millar v R [2019] NZCA 570; R v Gosling [2019] NZHC 1233 – defendant drinking, went on joy ride, grossly excessive speed, one person killed. A starting point of six years and three months’ imprisonment; R v Breakwell [2019] NZHC 3338
— excessive speed, ran red lights, evading police, breach of license – starting point of five and a half years.
4 Millar v R, above n 3, at [25]
Personal Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
[40] The first aggravating feature is your criminal history. While much of it is for unrelated offending, it demonstrates a disregard for authority and the judicial system. More importantly, you have a formidable number of convictions for driving related offending – you have five convictions for driving whilst disqualified, five for driving with excess blood or breath alcohol, one for driving in a dangerous manner, one for failing to stop when being followed by a police vehicle with its red and blue lights activated, one for operating a vehicle causing a sustained loss of traction, and one for driving while unlicensed and failing to comply with a prohibition. It is clear that you are a totally irresponsible driver and that you have learnt nothing from the previous sentences that have been imposed on you in the course of your sorry criminal history. I uplift your sentence by 12 months to recognise your appalling driving history.
[41] I also note your behaviour following the crash. You lied to police about your role in and your responsibility for the crash. You showed little if any concern for Mr Munro. You lied about how much you had been drinking. You lied about using your cellphone. Further, you caused a significant delay in the disposition of this matter, and that has had an adverse impact on the victim’s family, as they made clear in their victim impact statements. You were granted electronically monitored bail on 19 November 2018. On 3 May 2019, you breached your bail by cutting off your bracelet and absconding. You were not located and rearrested until 19 July 2019. Your trial had been scheduled for 8 July 2019. The trial had to be vacated, and, as a direct result of your actions, your trial did not take place until February 2020. That delay has caused understandable anguish for Mr Munro’s family. You put a post on Facebook which was highly derogatory of Mr Munro and blamed him for the crash while you were on the run. Unfortunately, that posting was seen and read by Mr Munro’s family. It must have caused considerable additional distress to them. In my view, these various matters are further aggravating features, which I am entitled to take into account, pursuant to s 9(1)(k) and/or s 9(4) of the Sentencing Act. I uplift the sentence by a further three months to recognise these matters.
[42]There are no other personal aggravating features that I am aware of.
[43]I turn to personal mitigating factors.
[44] I have already noted Mr Bamford’s submission that you should be entitled to a discount because of your personal circumstances, as outlined in Dr Adamson’s report. I have some reservations about that report. It is in large part based on what you told Dr Adamson and there are various differences between what you have previously said and what you told Dr Adamson. For example, you told Dr Adamson that you had been consuming methamphetamine on the night. That is inconsistent with previous assertions made by you. I also note that there is no evidence that methamphetamine was found in your blood. As I have noted, Dr Adamson’s report contains detailed information on your background and childhood, and on a range of factors which led you to become addicted to alcohol and then to methamphetamine. I accept that you did not have a particularly happy childhood, but there is nothing in Dr Adamson’s report which suggests that your background was causative of your offending. To put it another way, there is no identified linkage between your personal circumstances and the tragic events which occurred on 2 January 2018. Speed caused the crash – not your personal circumstances or the consumption of alcohol. Your personal circumstances do not explain or excuse your offending. Nor did your addictions lead to your decision to drive as you did on the night in question. I cannot see that your personal circumstances reduce your culpability, or that they suggest that the sentence I am imposing on you would be disproportionately severe. I accept that you have shown some interest in rehabilitation, but to my mind, that is best considered when determining whether or not to impose a minimum period of imprisonment. I come to that issue shortly.
[45] You have not expressed any genuine remorse. I note the comments of the Provisions of Advice to Courts report writer in this regard. I have already referred to your letter to the Munro family. The sentiments you express in that letter are in stark contrast to the vituperative comments in the Facebook posting that you put online. In my view, your behaviour makes it clear that you have no real remorse at all for your offending. Rather, I suspect that you now very much regret the circumstances you find yourself in, and are prepared to say anything to try and better your position.
[46] At trial you did indicate through your counsel that you were prepared to enter a guilty plea to the alternative charge of dangerous driving causing death. That was not, in my view, an indication of remorse – rather it was an attempt to avoid the sterner penalty that was likely to follow a conviction for manslaughter. I also note that you did not in the event enter a guilty plea to the alternative charge.
[47]I decline to allow you a discount for personal circumstances or for remorse.
[48] You were 26 years old at the time of the offending. You were and are too old to be entitled to a discount for youth. Put bluntly, you were old enough to know better. Your appalling driving was sustained and not impulsive. I do not allow you a discount for youth.
[49] There was no offer of reparation and you have no means to make any meaningful offer.
[50] I note that you were on electronically monitored bail for some time. I cannot however give you a discount for this. You breached your bail, cut off the bracelet and absconded. You also breached your bail in other respects by leaving the bail address at an earlier time and by consuming alcohol repeatedly despite the fact that it was a condition of your bail bond that you not do so.
Sentence
[51]Mr Tranter will you please stand.
[52] In respect of the offence of manslaughter resulting in the death of Jack Munro I sentence you to eight years and three months’ imprisonment.
[53] In respect of the offence of driving with excess blood alcohol, I sentence you to three months’ imprisonment to be served concurrently with the sentence for manslaughter.
Disqualification
[54] You have been convicted of manslaughter. Pursuant to s 125(2) of the Sentencing Act I can impose any period of disqualification that I think fit. The discretion is not however unlimited.
[55] The principal objective of disqualification is public safety, but a period of disqualification can be manifestly excessive. There are competing considerations:
(a)long periods of disqualification typically leave little hope for offenders; and
(b)it is incumbent on the courts to keep dangerous drivers off the road for as long as reasonably possible.
The task of a sentencing Judge is to effect an appropriate balance between these two considerations and the fixing of that balance depends upon the circumstances of the particular case.5
[56] Judges also have to bear in mind that imposing very long periods of disqualification can be counterproductive. It is unrealistic to assume that offenders disqualified for very long periods will not drive. It is likely that once released offenders will drive again and putting in place an unrealistic period of disqualification will only encourage unlawful behaviour and perhaps lead to further dangerous driving. The courts should not set offenders up to fail.
[57] I have already discussed the aggravating features of your offending. It led to the death of Mr Munro. Alcohol was involved. Your speed was manifestly excessive. Your criminal history involving driving related offending is very bad. Public safety has to be to the fore. You have to be kept off the road for as long as is reasonably practicable. I impose a period of disqualification of six years. That period of disqualification is to commence on the day that you are released from custody.
5 Hitchens v Police CA 380/03, 25 March 2004; Leaupepe v Police [2015] NZHC 1766 at [8]-[13].
Minimum Period of Imprisonment
[58] The Court can impose a minimum period of imprisonment if it is satisfied that the ordinary parole eligibility date is insufficient to hold the offender accountable, to denounce the offender’s conduct, to deter them and others, or to protect the community.
[59] The Crown has submitted that the usual non-parole period of one third of the sentence would not be sufficient in your case. I do not agree. You have expressed some willingness to undertake rehabilitation for your alcohol and drug dependency. There is perhaps a faint glimmer of hope that you may belatedly acknowledge some responsibility for what has occurred. I have imposed a lengthy sentence on you and overly long prison sentences can be counterproductive, indeed perhaps destructive for younger people.6 I consider that your release date should be left to the Parole Board. It is best placed to assess how you respond to the sentence I have imposed on you and to the rehabilitation opportunities that will be offered to you while you are in custody. A copy of these Sentencing Notes will be made available to the Parole Board, as will the various reports I have referred to. The Parole Board may consider it appropriate to direct that, on release, you undergo a programme for your alcohol and drug dependency. Further, it may consider it appropriate to refer you to the Driving Change programme run by Odyssey Community Services for those who are recidivist bad drivers. These matters are however for the Board.
[60]Mr Tranter, you may stand down.
Wylie J
6 Millar v R, above n 3, at [28].
4
8
0