On 14 November 2016, the appellant, Mr Richards, pleaded guilty to four charges — one of reckless driving causing death and three of reckless driving causing injury. He had earlier pleaded guilty to a charge of theft. On 3 September 2017, he was sentenced by Gendall J in the High Court at Dunedin on all five charges to three years and three months’ imprisonment. In addition, he was disqualified from driving for four years.[1]
[1]R v Richards [2017] NZHC 74.
Mr Richards appeals his sentence on the ground it is manifestly excessive.

Background facts

On 29 July 2015, the deceased, Nakita Strange, and three young men had set out from Invercargill to drive to Christchurch. As they neared Dunedin, they realised they needed petrol. They did not have enough money to buy it. Ms Strange, who knew Mr Richards, contacted him and asked for assistance. The group picked up Mr Richards and a female friend of his, KH. Either Mr Richards or KH offered to do a petrol “drive off” for the group.
Mr Richards only had a learner licence but he took over the driving. At 2.05 am he pulled into a service station near central Dunedin. The car was filled with petrol valued at $75.54. Mr Richards then drove off at speed, squealing the vehicle’s tyres, without paying.
One member of the group was seated in the front passenger seat. The other four, including Ms Strange, were seated in the back seat. They were not wearing seatbelts.
Mr Richards drove a short distance down one leg of State Highway 1, then turned right and drove the wrong way down a one way street for a distance of 150 metres. He then turned right again and drove approximately 350 metres in a northerly direction. Mr Richards turned left into yet another street, then a short distance across a major road before veering off to the left. He went through an intersection without slowing down, despite being obliged to give way. He continued on to a second intersection. Again he did not slow down or give way. Another vehicle, which had right of way, collided with the car being driven by Mr Richards. The front of that vehicle hit the rear right side of the car being driven by Mr Richards, causing it to spin. It crashed into a parked car and then hit a wall. The total distance covered between the service station and the crash site was approximately 1.24 km.
One of the passengers estimated his speed as being up to 80 km/h at times; Mr Richards…

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 Richards v R

Details

AGLC: Richards v R [2017] NZCA 232
Case: [2017] NZCA 232
Decision Date: 1 June 2017 at 4.00 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Shay Robert Richards, the appellant, against the respondent, the Queen, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand was tasked with assessing the appeal against Richards' sentence for reckless driving causing death and three charges of reckless driving causing injury. The appellant argued that his sentence of three years and three months imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The court considered the appellant's culpability, the aggravating and mitigating factors, and the discount for youth and guilty pleas.

The court found that the appellant's culpability was at a high level, as he had driven recklessly and ignored warnings from passengers. The consumption of cannabis, while present, was not necessarily linked to the offending, and therefore should not have been considered as an aggravating factor. The court noted that the appellant's reckless driving, overloading of the vehicle, and driving in breach of his licence were aggravating factors. However, the court found that the appellant did not demonstrate genuine remorse, as he walked away from the scene, did not attempt to assist the deceased, and continued driving after the crash.

The court also found that the 10 per cent discount for youth and personal circumstances was appropriate, given the gravity of the offending. While the appellant's age and unstable home life were considered, the court balanced this against the need to denounce and deter such offending. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was within the available range for the offending and there was no error of principle.

Ultimately, the appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence of three years and three months imprisonment, along with a four-year driving disqualification, was upheld. The Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed was appropriate, considering the appellant's culpability and the need to denounce and deter such offending.

Orders