The Queen v Corey James Grant - [2002] NZCA 301

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA 240/02

THE QUEEN

COREY JAMES GRANT

Hearing:	2 December 2002
Coram:	Blanchard J
Panckhurst J Salmon J
Appearances:	D J Taffs for Appellant
A Markham for Crown
Judgment:	11 December 2002

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY PANCKHURST J

This is another tragic case of motor manslaughter involving a young person who caused the death of a friend by criminally reckless driving of a motor vehicle. The sentence imposed was six years imprisonment. The appellant, a young man, is aged eighteen years. It is contended on his behalf that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

Background

The accident occurred on 28 December 2001. By arrangement the appellant drove a two litre high performance car belonging to his friend Andrew Newton, the deceased, from Greymouth to the viaduct near Arthurs Pass. There was a third person seated in the rear of the vehicle. At the viaduct they met a second car which had come from Christchurch. In it were three occupants who were known to the appellant and his friends.
A capsule of cannabis oil was produced by one of the group and shared (smoked) by them. The two cars then drove the short distance to Arthurs Pass village. There they stopped for lunch before continuing on to Christchurch.
As the cars left Arthurs Pass they were stopped by the police for exceeding the 50 kilometre per hour limit. The appellant’s speed was 97 kilometres per hour. He received an infringement notice for $630. In addition the officer warned both drivers concerning the risks associated with driving at such an excessive speed before they were allowed to continue on their way at about 4.55pm.
Despite such warning the subsequent course of driving of the two drivers was described in the summary of facts in these terms:
On the return trip they frequently exceed the 100 kilometres per hour speed limit with speeds up to and possibly over 200 kilometres per hour, including overtaking several vehicles at a time and passing on hills and corners.
Investigations have revealed that there are about a dozen witnesses to the dangerous manner of (the appellant’s) driving prior to the crash.

The accident itself occurred a short distance from Christchurch.

The two vehicles approached the city along the old West Coast Road (a secondary route and shortcut, which takes motorists off the main state highway for a distance by-passing Darfield township). It is a rural road which services numerous lifestyle blocks nearer to Christchurch. On it the subject two cars attained speeds estimated to be up to 200 kilometres per hour.
At Yaldhurst (on the outskirts of Christchurch) the old West Coast Road rejoins the main state highway. The two converge at a V-shaped intersection, so that motorists on the old West Coast Road must execute a slight right hand sweep, and comply with a give way sign, before turning slightly left to rejoin the state highway.
The appellant approached the intersection at excessive speed, hit…

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 The Queen v Corey James Grant

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Corey James Grant [2002] NZCA 301
Case: [2002] NZCA 301
Decision Date: 11 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queen v Corey James Grant is an appeal against a sentence of six years imprisonment imposed on Corey James Grant for motor manslaughter. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and contended that aspects of the factual background were construed unfairly against his interests.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the summary of facts and witness statements presented at the sentencing hearing were balanced and fair. The court needed to consider whether the appellant's guilty plea, which was entered late, should have attracted a larger discount and whether the appellant's driving was as reckless as portrayed in the sentencing remarks.

The court found that the sentencing remarks were based on the summary of facts, and the court was not influenced by the additional material presented by the prosecutor. The court concluded that the appellant's driving was reckless and that the speed at which he was driving was excessive. The court found that the appellant's personal characteristics and his previous convictions did not warrant a more lenient sentence. The court dismissed the appeal, stating that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

In summary, the Court of Appeal upheld the sentence of six years imprisonment for Corey James Grant, finding that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the summary of facts and witness statements were balanced and fair. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders