Taylor v Police - [2017] NZHC 856

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CRI-2017-412-000018 [2017] NZHC 856

BETWEEN
WARRICK DELANEY TAYLOR

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 26 April 2017

Appearances:

A M Dawson for Appellant
R D Smith for Crown

Judgment:

2 May 2017

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] This appeal addresses the limits of a sentencing Judge’s discretion when the

culpability of the offending appears to exceed, by some margin, the charges laid.

[2] In this case, the appellant was sentenced to a total of five months imprisonment on one charge of careless driving causing death and five charges of careless driving causing injury. The charges all arose out of one driving incident, when the appellant crossed the centre line on State Highway One and collided with the deceased victim’s vehicle. The following three vehicles also became involved in the collision and injuries ensued to four occupants of those vehicles plus one occupant of the appellant’s vehicle.

[3] The appellant appeals his sentence on the basis that the sentence is manifestly excessive because:

(a) the Judge failed to provide credit for mitigating factors (despite acknowledging that credit should be allowed); and

TAYLOR v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 856 [2 May 2017]

Background

[4] On 3 June 2016, the appellant, who only had a learner licence, drove an associate from Oamaru to Dunedin to attend an appointment in the city. The car he was driving was unregistered and unwarranted. Before leaving Oamaru, both the defendant and his associate smoked some cannabis. The defendant drove his unlicensed associate, and on the way they stopped at a rest area, where they shared a cannabis joint together and drank a can of premix alcohol.

[5] Following the Dunedin appointment, the appellant drove his associate and his associate’s cousin back towards Oamaru. More cannabis was smoked by the three occupants during the journey. Between Waikouaiti and Waitati, the appellant approached a moderate left-hand bend. It was dark at the time but the weather was fine and the visibility good. The appellant’s vehicle went across the centreline before the bend. He hit the first of several vehicles travelling in convoy and the driver of the first oncoming vehicle died as a result of injuries sustained in the crash. Four occupants in the three vehicles which were following, and the defendant’s associate, all sustained injuries in the crash. In explanation the appellant claimed that he looked down and then up and then the accident happened.

District Court decision

[6] The Judge found that the appellant’s driving conduct was at the highest level of carelessness. There was sustained drug use over the day and the appellant was driving outside of the terms of his learner licence and in an unregistered and unwarranted car.

[7] The Judge found that the appellant had showed some remorse by attending a restorative justice conference. However, he also noted that the appellant had stated that he was pressured into driving, which he considered did not indicate a full acceptance of responsibility. The Judge…

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 Taylor v Police

Details

AGLC: Taylor v Police [2017] NZHC 856
Case: [2017] NZHC 856
Decision Date: 2 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Taylor v Police before the High Court of New Zealand involved an appeal by the appellant, Warrick Delaney Taylor, against his sentence imposed by the District Court. Taylor was sentenced to five months imprisonment for six charges of careless driving, which arose from a single incident where he collided with several vehicles while under the influence of drugs, resulting in one death and multiple injuries. The central legal issues were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive due to the Judge's failure to provide credit for mitigating factors and the imposition of cumulative sentences.

The Court examined whether the Judge adequately considered and applied credit for mitigating factors such as Taylor's early guilty plea and remorse, as recommended by the Taueki approach. Although the Judge acknowledged these factors, he did not clearly articulate why they were not reflected in the sentence. The Court held that while it was within the Judge's discretion to consider that any remorse shown was not beyond that indicated by the guilty plea, the Judge erred by not reflecting some credit for the guilty plea. The Court also addressed the appropriateness of imposing cumulative sentences in light of section 84 of the Sentencing Act, which generally advises concurrent sentences for similar kinds of offences. The Court concluded that, given the exceptional circumstances of the case, it was open to the Judge to impose cumulative sentences to reflect the totality of the offending, even though this was an unusual set of circumstances. The Court ultimately found that the sentence, while not perfectly articulated, was not manifestly excessive and thus upheld the District Court's decision.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was confirmed.

Orders