Worthy Redeemed v R - [2013] NZCA 61

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA792/2011
CA408/2012
[2013] NZCA 61

BETWEEN WORTHY REDEEMED (AKA LEE ERROL JAMES SILVESTER)
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

Hearing: 23 October 2012

Court: Arnold, Ellen France and French JJ

Counsel: L L Heah for Appellant
M F Laracy and R A Hearn for Respondent

Judgment: 15 March 2013 at 2 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appellant’s application to adduce new evidence is declined.
BThe appeal against conviction is dismissed.
CThe appeal against sentence is allowed. The sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of seven years is quashed and a sentence of 13 years, six months’ imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of six years, nine months is substituted.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Arnold J)

Introduction

The appellant, Mr Worthy Redeemed, was convicted following a jury trial before Whata J of three counts of manslaughter, one count of causing grievous bodily harm with reckless disregard for the safety of others and two counts of injuring with reckless disregard for the safety of others. The charges arose out of a collision between a car in which the appellant was travelling in the front passenger seat and a bus, which left three people dead and several having suffered serious injury. The essential allegation was that the appellant had grabbed the steering wheel and caused the car to turn into the path of the bus, which was travelling towards the car on the opposite side of the road.
Whata J sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for a term of 14 years, with a minimum period of imprisonment of seven years.[1] Mr Redeemed now appeals against both conviction and sentence.

Factual background

[1] R v Redeemed HC Christchurch CRI-2010-061-982, 25 October 2011.

The appellant, who was 38, had been drinking one evening with some friends, including Dean McCartney. The appellant and Mr McCartney went to sleep in a car which the appellant had borrowed. The following morning they decided to drive the car to visit Reece Dick-Durham, a 17 year old whom they knew through an organisation at which the appellant was a tutor. They arrived at his house around 10 am. Mr Dick-Durham observed that they had been drinking. There were two further young people at Mr Dick-Durham’s house, Kodee Rapana and Jethro Cooper. They all decided to visit some addresses to see whether they could purchase some cannabis. They went in the car. Mr McCartney was driving, with the appellant in the front passenger seat. In the backseat were Mr Cooper on the right hand side, Ms Rapana in the middle and Mr Dick-Durham on the left.
At trial, two witnesses gave evidence that shortly before the crash the vehicle was behaving erratically:
(a) Mr Mathers said that the car pulled out in front of him at a T intersection without stopping at a stop sign. It then veered over the middle line onto the wrong side of the road as it passed through a…

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 Worthy Redeemed v R

Details

AGLC: Worthy Redeemed v R [2013] NZCA 61
Case: [2013] NZCA 61
Decision Date: 15 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Worthy Redeemed (AKA Lee Errol James Silvester) appeals against his conviction and sentence for three counts of manslaughter, one count of causing grievous bodily harm with reckless disregard for the safety of others and two counts of injuring with reckless disregard for the safety of others. The charges arose out of a collision between a car, in which the appellant was a passenger, and a bus, which left three people dead and several having suffered serious injury. The essential allegation was that the appellant had grabbed the car’s steering wheel and caused the car to turn into the path of the bus, which was travelling towards the car on the opposite side of the road. The Crown argued that the appellant’s actions were deliberate and dangerous. The appellant argued that he did not remember what happened and that his friend, who was the driver, was to blame. The appellant’s trial counsel did not call expert evidence about the crash. The appellant’s counsel on appeal argued that the absence of this evidence meant that the jury might have had reasonable doubt as to the appellant’s involvement in the crash. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction and held that the absence of the expert evidence did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against sentence and reduced the sentence by six months to 13 years, six months’ imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of six years, nine months.

Orders