THE KING AND JEREMY ADAM SHARP - [2024] NZHC 2936

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-475

[2024] NZHC 2936

BETWEEN
THE KING

Appellant

AND

JEREMY ADAM SHARP

Respondent

Hearing: 1 October 2024

Appearances:

B J Thompson for appellant S D Cassidy for respondent

Judgment:

10 October 2024

JUDGMENT OF JOHNSTONE J

(appeal against sentence)

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 October 2024 at 12 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

R v SHARP [2024] NZHC 2936 [10 October 2024]

[1] On 28 September 2022, 44 year old mother of three, Magriet Miller, was driving home from work along Waiuku Road. Jeremy Adam Sharp, who had been drinking alcohol and smoking cannabis, drove in the other direction, and into Ms Miller’s lane, causing a head-on collision and Ms Miller’s death.

[2] More than two and a half years later, Mr Sharp was sentenced in the District Court at Manukau, on the charge of being in charge of a motor vehicle and causing a person’s death while the proportion of alcohol in his blood exceeded 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres. He was ordered to serve 11 months’ home detention and 250 hours’ community work.1

[3]With the Solicitor-General’s consent, the Crown appeals Mr Sharp’s sentence.2

[4] As this is a sentence appeal, I must allow it if satisfied that, for any reason, there is an error in the sentence, and a different sentence should be imposed.3 However, the sentence will only be increased if it is manifestly inadequate or based upon a wrong principle.4 The Court will be reluctant to interfere with the sentence if this would cause injustice to the offender.5 And if the appeal is allowed, the sentence should only be increased to the level that accords with the lowest range of appropriate sentences for the relevant offending.6

[5] The Crown says that Mr Sharp was sentenced on the basis of incorrect and misleading information about rehabilitative steps he was said to have undertaken, and that were it not for this, he would have received a sentence of imprisonment.

The offending

[6] The essence of the offending is outlined above. Waiuku Road is a chip-sealed rural road between Pukekohe and Waiuku, with a speed limit of 80 kilometres per hour.

1      R v Sharp [2024] NZDC 18636.
2      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 246.
3      Section 250(2).
4      R v Muavae [2000] 3 NZLR 483 (CA) at [10] citing R v Pue [1974] 2 NZLR 392 (CA), recently affirmed in McCaslin-Whitehead v R [2023] NZCA 259 at [30].
5      R v Donaldson (1997) 14 CRNZ 537 (CA) at 550 as cited in McCaslin-Whitehead v R, above n 4, at [31].
6      McCaslin-Whitehead v R, above n 4, at [32].

The collision occurred at around 9.30 pm, wholly within the westbound lane in which Ms Miller was travelling, Mr Sharp having driven into her path.

[7] Mr Sharp’s blood alcohol reading was 104 milligrams per 100 millilitres. His blood sample was further analysed and found…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read THE KING AND JEREMY ADAM SHARP and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NZHC 2936
Decision Date: 10 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The King, as the appellant, has appealed against the sentence imposed on Jeremy Adam Sharp, the respondent, who was convicted of being in charge of a motor vehicle and causing a person's death while the proportion of alcohol in his blood exceeded 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres. Sharp was sentenced in the District Court at Manukau to 11 months’ home detention and 250 hours’ community work. The Crown, with the Solicitor-General’s consent, appeals the sentence, contending that it was based on incorrect and misleading information about rehabilitative steps Sharp was said to have undertaken, and that a sentence of imprisonment would have been imposed but for this misunderstanding. The court must allow the appeal if satisfied that, for any reason, there is an error in the sentence and a different sentence should be imposed. However, the sentence will only be increased if it is manifestly inadequate or based on a wrong principle. The Court will be reluctant to interfere with the sentence if this would cause injustice to the offender. If the appeal is allowed, the sentence should only be increased to the level that accords with the lowest range of appropriate sentences for the relevant offending.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing court was under a misunderstanding regarding the rehabilitative steps Sharp had undertaken and, if so, whether that misunderstanding was material to the sentencing outcome. The court found that the sentencing judge was likely to have misunderstood the extent of Sharp’s engagement with counselling, as the reference to completion of a programme suggested numerous sessions of a standardised therapy, whereas Sharp only attended an assessment and two sessions of counselling. The court found that this misunderstanding was material, as it led to a significant reduction in the quantum of sentence, resulting in a non-custodial sentence being imposed. The court concluded that the sentence imposed on Sharp was manifestly inadequate and that community confidence in the administration of justice required the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment.

The court allowed the Crown’s appeal and set aside the sentence of 11 months’ home detention and 250 hours’ community work, substituting it with a sentence of two years’ imprisonment. The court reduced the sentence by five months to avoid any risk of injustice, resulting in a final sentence of 17 months’ imprisonment. Sharp must surrender himself to the Prison Director at Mt Eden Corrections Facility to commence his sentence by 2.00 pm on Friday, 11 October 2024. The current sentence of home detention is to continue in effect until that time.

Orders