Roberts v Police - [2013] NZHC 2233

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CRI-2013-412-000015 [2013] NZHC 2233

CAMERON ZANE ROBERTS

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing: 29 August 2013

Counsel:

S C Blake for Appellant
R D Smith for the Crown

Judgment:

29 August 2013

JUDGMENT OF PANCKHURST J

[1] This tragic case is another example of the prevalent problem of young men living in a rural environment who drive irresponsibly after drinking with the result that one has lost his life.

[2] The appellant, Cameron Roberts, faced a charge of dangerous driving causing death. In May 2013 he was sentenced to two years and eight months imprisonment. He appeals against that sentence on the basis that it is clearly excessive and that a lesser term should have been arrived at as the end sentence, which would have opened the door for a community based response.

[3] To my mind, the main focus of the appeal has been upon the starting point adopted by Judge Crosbie of four and a half years imprisonment, before he made a
40 percent reduction for a guilty plea and personal mitigating factors to arrive at the

end sentence of two years and eight months.

ROBERTS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2013] NZHC 2233 [29 August 2013]

[4] Invariably, the facts are of crucial importance in cases such as this. On Monday 5 March 2012, the appellant and two friends went to the Ranfurly Hotel at about 6.15 pm. One of the friends was about to depart for the United Kingdom and they were to have farewell drinks together. They did this for a time and then left the hotel, purchased petrol and also something to eat. The three then picked up Mr Cobie Stringer, a young man aged 20 years. They then went to the Patearoa Tavern arriving there at about 8.30 in the evening. En route to the tavern they passed another motorist who observed that the appellant was driving in excess of the 100 kilometres per hour speed limit. At the tavern they were joined by two further friends. The group of six remained together at the tavern until about 11.30 pm. The two who had joined the group at a later stage left first, driving separately and towards Ranfurly.

[5] Mr Roberts, the appellant drove his vehicle with the three passengers, Mr Stringer being in the back seat. Initially the front seat passenger did not have his seatbelt on. However, during the course of the journey he became uncomfortable as a result of the course of driving and he fastened his seatbelt. The appellant’s vehicle failed to take a moderate bend. It went on to the wrong side of the road, off the road and into a ditch. It then slid for approximately 50 metres before it became airborne, barrel rolled a number of times and came to rest having travelled a further 64 metres.

[6] Mr Stringer was the only one not wearing a seatbelt. He was ejected from the vehicle at an early stage in…

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 Roberts v Police

Details

AGLC: Roberts v Police [2013] NZHC 2233
Case: [2013] NZHC 2233
Decision Date: 29 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cameron Zane Roberts appeals against his sentence for dangerous driving causing death, arguing it is excessive and should have been lower, potentially allowing for a community-based response. The court must decide if the starting point and reduction for the guilty plea and personal mitigating factors were appropriate. The court found that the starting point of four and a half years, while stern, was within the available range. It also found that the reduction of 40 percent for the guilty plea and personal mitigating factors was sufficient. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence stands at two years and eight months imprisonment.

The court examined the facts of the case, including the excessive speed and alcohol consumption of the appellant, the aggressive driving earlier that night, and the lack of seatbelt use by the deceased passenger. The court also considered the appellant's age, lack of previous convictions, remorse, and efforts to address alcohol abuse and make amends. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate and not clearly excessive.

Orders