Robinson v Police - [2022] NZHC 442

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2022-425-01

[2022] NZHC 442

BETWEEN
TULLY ISABEL ROBINSON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 22 February 2022

Appearances:

K Cook for Appellant

R Donnelly for Respondent

Judgment:

11 March 2022

JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 March 2022 at 3.00 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

ROBINSON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 442 [11 March 2022]

Introduction

[1] Tully Robinson was sentenced1 to four months and two weeks’ home detention by Judge J J Brandts-Giesen on one charge of careless driving causing death2 and one charge of careless driving causing injury.3 The Judge also ordered reparation totalling
$35,000, disqualified Ms Robinson from driving for 18 months, imposed judicial monitoring, special conditions of home detention and six months of post-detention conditions and special conditions.

[2] Ms Robinson appeals that sentence in relation to the special conditions of home detention, post-detention conditions and special post-detention conditions, including the judicial monitoring. She asserts there was no basis for their imposition.

[3] Ms Robinson does not appeal the other aspects of the sentence (home detention, reparation and disqualification).4

Facts

[4] In August 2020 Ms Robinson, normally a resident of Sydney, was visiting the Queenstown area.

[5] On 22 August at about 9.13 pm, Ms Robinson was driving a Toyota Landcruiser along Malaghans Road from Arrowtown in a south-west direction. Astin Caldwell and Allanah Walker were driving along Malaghans Road towards Arrowtown.

[6] Ms Robinson had been travelling at approximately 108 km/hr before accelerating to 112 km/hr. She travelled over the double yellow centreline, crossing onto the other side of the road. Mr Caldwell observed her vehicle travelling towards his and attempted to take evasive action by steering his vehicle right, also crossing the centre line of the road. The vehicles collided on the front passenger side. Ms Walker

1      R v Robinson [2021] NZDC 24140.
2      Land Transport Act 1998, s 39; maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
3      Land Transport Act, s 39; maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
4      In her notice of appeal, Ms Robinson appealed also against the length of the sentence of home detention but that aspect of the appeal was abandoned.

was killed upon impact and Mr Caldwell was trapped in his vehicle. He suffered serious injuries.

[7] A blood sample taken from Ms Robinson showed she had 59 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. Subsequent analysis of her mobile phone showed she had sent a series of messages on Facebook Messenger between 9.12:36 pm and 9.13:50 pm, with an unsent but typed message open at the time of impact.

District Court decision

[8] The Judge took a starting point of 17 months’ imprisonment. He granted a full 25 per cent discount for Ms Robinson’s immediate guilty plea, a 10 per cent discount for her previous good character and youth, and a 15 per cent discount for her remorse and participation in restorative justice, resulting…

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 Robinson v Police

Details

AGLC: Robinson v Police [2022] NZHC 442
Case: [2022] NZHC 442
Decision Date: 11 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tully Robinson was sentenced to four months and two weeks’ home detention by Judge J J Brandts-Giesen for one charge of careless driving causing death and one charge of careless driving causing injury. The Judge also ordered reparation of $35,000, disqualified Ms Robinson from driving for 18 months, imposed judicial monitoring, special conditions of home detention, and six months of post-detention conditions and special conditions. Ms Robinson appeals that sentence in relation to the special conditions of home detention, post-detention conditions, and special post-detention conditions, including the judicial monitoring. She asserts there was no basis for their imposition. The legal issues the court was required to decide were whether there was a significant risk of further offending by Ms Robinson, and if the special conditions were necessary to reduce the risk of further offending. The Court held that there was no basis to impose the assessment or treatment conditions under the Sentencing Act, as there was no evidence of alcohol use or abuse being an ongoing issue for Ms Robinson. The judicial monitoring order was also quashed as there was no evidence it was necessary. The post-detention (standard) conditions were considered to be a part of the sentence proper and did not necessarily have to achieve the sentencing purpose of rehabilitation or reintegration. The appeal was allowed in relation to the assessment and treatment conditions and the judicial monitoring but otherwise dismissed.

The final orders were that the appeal against the drug and alcohol assessment condition and the assessment and treatment conditions, both during and post-detention, and the judicial monitoring, is allowed, and those conditions are quashed. The appeal is otherwise dismissed.

Orders