Stephens v Police - [2014] NZHC 175

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2013-419-57 [2014] NZHC 175

BETWEEN NICOL JOY STEPHENS Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 17 February 2014

Counsel: LJR Wilkins for the Appellant
J E Tarrant for the Respondent

Judgment: 17 February 2014

Reasons: 18 February 2014

JUDGMENT OF BROWN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 February 2014 at 4 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Crown Solicitors, Hamilton
Counsel: LJR Wilkins, Hamilton

STEPHENS v POLICE [2014] NZHC 175 [17 February 2014]

Introduction

[1] Ms Stephens appeals against a sentence of three years imprisonment imposed by Judge AIM Tompkins in the Hamilton District Court on 12 July 2013. Ms Stephens had entered guilty pleas on the first appearance to two indictably laid charges, one of dangerous driving causing death and a second of dangerous driving causing injury.

Background facts

[2] The charges related to a crash that occurred on 18 October 2012 on Ohaupo Road, Glenview, Hamilton. The appellant was driving dangerously and at excessive speed when her vehicle collided with an oncoming vehicle resulting in the death of her passenger and serious injury to the driver of the oncoming vehicle. Earlier that evening the appellant and her passenger had met with an associate in a carpark, allegedly to purchase methamphetamine. It appears that the passenger acquired the drugs but elected not to pay for them. He returned to the vehicle and Ms Stephens drove off with him in the passenger seat.

[3] The associate engaged in pursuit and both cars sped dangerously and at high speed first through residential areas and subsequently on the open road. Witness accounts suggest the appellant engaged in a sustained period of bad driving. Prior to crashing, the vehicle’s speed was estimated to be 100-140 kms/hr, the speed causing the vehicle to waver and slide across the double yellow lines. There is no evidence that the oncoming vehicle was speeding at the time.

District Court decision

[4] The Judge set the starting point at five years imprisonment on the basis of an assessment of Ms Stephen’s overall culpability and the gravity of the offending. The Judge considered the High Court judgment in R v Gacitua1 to be closely analogous
to the facts in Ms Stephens’ case. He also referred to the 2011 increase in the

1 R v Gacitua [2012] NZHC 2542 (more recently upheld by the Court of Appeal R v Cacitua
[2013] NZCA 234).

maximum period of imprisonment for dangerous driving causing death from five to ten years.2

[5] The Judge proceeded to deduct 12 months (20 per cent) for Ms Stephens’ degree of demonstrated remorse, her rehabilitative steps and for her participation in the restorative justice process including the wish taken by the victim’s family that Ms Stephens not be sentenced to imprisonment.

[6] Finally the Judge deducted 12 months (25 per cent) for Ms Stephens’ guilty

plea, resulting in an end sentence of three years imprisonment.

Grounds of appeal

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 Stephens v Police

Details

AGLC: Stephens v Police [2014] NZHC 175
Case: [2014] NZHC 175
Decision Date: 18 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stephens v Police concerns an appeal by the appellant, Ms Stephens, against a sentence of three years imprisonment imposed by Judge AIM Tompkins in the Hamilton District Court. Ms Stephens had entered guilty pleas to charges of dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing injury. The charges stemmed from a crash that occurred on 18 October 2012, in which the appellant's dangerous driving at excessive speed resulted in the death of her passenger and serious injury to the driver of an oncoming vehicle. The legal issues in this appeal pertained to the calculation of the discount for guilty pleas and the overall reduction in sentence, particularly in relation to the exceptional remorse and efforts at rehabilitation demonstrated by the appellant.

The court examined the first ground of appeal, which argued that the overall reduction in sentence insufficiently reflected the exceptional remorse and efforts at rehabilitation demonstrated by the appellant. The court found that while there were distinctions between this case and R v Prince, there was no error in Judge Tompkins' approach in granting a 20 per cent discount for remorse, which the court considered to be sound and even marginally generous. The court also addressed the second ground of appeal, which was concerned with the sequence of the application of the discounts for remorse and guilty plea. The court determined that there was no basis for taking issue with Judge Tompkins' approach, as outlined in the Supreme Court decision in Hessell v R, where the Court stated that there is no objection in principle to the application of a reduction in a sentence for a guilty plea once all other relevant matters have been evaluated and a provisional sentence reflecting them has been decided upon.

Ultimately, the court found no error in the Judge's approach and dismissed the appeal. The court concluded that a sentence of three years imprisonment in the circumstances of this case was not manifestly excessive.

Orders