IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT PAPAKURA CRI [2016] NZDC NEW ZEALAND POLICE Prosecutor. CAMERON JASON PANTON Defendant

Transcription

1 EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT PAPAKURA CRI [2016] NZDC NEW ZEALAND POLICE Prosecutor v CAMERON JASON PANTON Defendant Hearing: 7 December 2016 Appearances: Sergeant B Ingram for the Prosecutor G Harvey for the Defendant Judgment: 7 December 2016 NOTES OF JUDGE R J EARWAKER ON SENTENCING [1] Now Mr Panton, you appear here today for sentence on five charges of driving with excess breath alcohol causing injury. The maximum penalty for that offence is five years imprisonment, fines and a minimum disqualification of one year. [2] The summary of facts which has been agreed makes for pretty grim reading. You had a learners drivers licence which was issued to you in 2015 and on the date of this incident, you did have a learners licence. There was some confusion about whether or not you in fact had a licence originally, that was clarified the last time you appeared. You did have a licence, but it was only a learners licence under a different name, Storey Panton. To my way of thinking, it does not actually make a great deal of difference because you were not supposed to be on the road anyway. With a learner s licence you must have a supervisor in the car and learners plates, NEW ZEALAND POLICE v CAMERON JASON PANTON [2016] NZDC [7 December 2016]

2 neither of that occurred on this occasion, so I do not see that the fact you had a licence has much bearing on events in any event. [3] At 3.15 am on 14 November, you were driving a motor vehicle along Dominion Road in Papakura in the direction of Clevedon Road. The speed limit is 50 km along that area, the vehicle did not have a current warrant of fitness, you attempted to take a right-hand bend, you lost control of the vehicle. Subsequent examination of the vehicle and the scene by police established that at the time you lost control of the vehicle, you would have been travelling not less than 73.6 kilometres an hour, so significantly higher than the speed limit. You skidded at least 21 metres along Dominion Road, mounted the curb, slid across the grass verge and struck a group of people who were standing on the front lawn of a residential property, crushing them between your vehicle and another vehicle that was parked on the lawn. Your vehicle then bounced from the impact and struck a roadside light pole with the left passenger side, knocking the light pole down. You caused serious injuries to the pedestrians who were standing in the front lawn and there were three of those. You also caused injury to a fourth person who was sitting in the passenger seat at the park vehicle that you struck. [4] Your passenger also suffered serious injuries in the crash. You were injured in the crash but were able to run a short distance from the scene before collapsing and being taken to hospital. Blood alcohol procedures were carried out in hospital and upon analysis, you were shown to have a reading of 151 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath. You should not have had any alcohol at all in your system. [5] As a result of your actions, there were serious injuries suffered to the victims. Zack Ward was admitted to hospital, he remained an inpatient for over two months during which time he underwent 19 operations. He suffered kidney failure and had to have his left leg amputated at the knee due to the trauma of being struck by your vehicle.

3 [6] Mr Panton suffered internal abdominal injuries including a fractured rib, a number of haematomas, his pancreas is damaged and doctors have indicated it may take possibly years to heal. His left kneecap was fractured. [7] Tassi Fenton suffered a crushed left leg in the crash, a large piece of his left leg including about five centimetres of bone was destroyed, his right fibula had snapped. The surgeons had to remove part of his abdomen to use in graphs to his left leg and use two rods and four pins in an effort to reconstruct the bone in that leg. He is to have a piece of bone surgically removed from his hip in order to create a reconstructive pace to set into his leg. [8] Naomi Haimona collapsed at the scene and was transported to hospital by ambulance, her left eye was swollen shut and she was unable to open it for several days. [9] Adam Booth suffered a fracture to his C4 vertebrae and a bleed to the brain. He suffered internal abdominal bleeding and his pelvis and bladder were badly bruised. He was wheelchair bound for nine days after the crash and had to wear a neck brace for five months. He is going to take almost two years to heal it is estimated. He continues to suffer constant pain and unable to sleep due to that pain. [10] Reparation is also sought for the Toyota vehicle that was struck by yours, although that was probably unrealistic. [11] I have read a pre-sentence report and also the victim impact statements. Regrettably, there was no restorative justice and that was partly due to the confusion on your part where sorry on their part where it was said that you were not accepting the summary of facts, that related to the fact where you said you had a licence and at that stage, you had been charged with being an unlicensed driver. [12] That matter was clarified when you last appeared, when in Court and the matter was remanded off because at least one of the complainants or the victims was wanting to undergo restorative justice, that would have benefited you, I am sure, as well as them. Unfortunately, I have a report today dated 5 December, which says

4 that this did not happen and that I think was largely based on a miscommunication between restorative justice people and what I had ordered, but be that as it may, it has not taken place and now everybody wants this matter to be over today, including the victims. So, I proceed to sentence you. [13] You are 26 years old, you have a two year daughter not in your custody and were employed as a bricklayer. The report says that alcohol, your alcohol use is problematic and that is clear. You admitted to consuming large amounts of alcohol prior to the incident. [14] The report also notes that your compliance with previous community based sentences is poor. You have convictions for breach of community work and a breach of supervision order. You are currently subject to a sentence of supervision which was imposed on 9 May of this year and your compliance has not been good with that. [15] The probation officer assesses your ability to comply with community based sentences as low and your risk of re-offending is considered to be high and you are assessed as being a medium to high risk of harm to others. [16] A concern that I have is an attitude that seems to come through the report, it appears you still do not fully accept the seriousness of what you have done or the summary of facts. The report indicates you have minimised serious injuries to the victims and the impact your offending has had on them. [17] As I said, Mr Panton, the reality is you should not have been on the road at all, driving was certainly outside the terms of your limited licence and clearly you should not have been on the road having consumed such a large amount of alcohol. You are entirely responsible for this horrific crash and the serious injuries that you have caused these people. [18] And you also have a history of drink-driving which aggravates this, 2008 you were convicted for excess breath alcohol for a person under , you were convicted for driving whilst forbidden and the careless use of a motor vehicle. 2012,

5 driving whist forbidden. July 2015, driving whilst forbidden. This crash took place on 14 November of 2015 and of real concern to me is that before these matters arising from this crash have been dealt with, you offended again in February 2016, you were convicted of driving with excess breath alcohol. March 2016, driving whilst suspended. [19] That indicates to me not only a lack of remorse and a lack of accountability for your actions, but it also demonstrates complete lack of respect for Court orders or a willingness to change or recognise you are a real danger to the public. [20] There is reparation of just under three and a half thousand dollars but I do not consider that it is realistic to order that. The police submit that an appropriate starting point before any deductions was three years imprisonment. Mr Harvey on your behalf adopting the submissions of Ms Treloar said the starting point is between two and three years is appropriate. You both accept a discount of 25 percent for your plea is appropriate. [21] Looking at the purposes and principles of sentencing I am required to take into account, I need to hold you accountable for the harm done to the victims of your offending, to promote in you a sense of responsibility for and acknowledgement of that harm, to denounce your conduct, to deter you and other persons from committing the same or similar offences, to protect the community from you. The other factor I am required to take into account is to assist in your rehabilitation and reintegration. [22] I must also take into account the principles of sentencing, being the gravity of the offending, your degree of culpability, the seriousness of this type of offence, the general desirability of consistency with appropriate sentencing, information provided to me concerning the effect of the victims which I have outlined and lastly, I must consider the least restrictive outcome. So looking at those purposes and principles, I need to assess an appropriate starting point. [23] There are a number of aggravating factors here relating to the offence, the extent of harm that has been caused, as I have noted your offending has resulted in

6 extremely serious, extensive and long lasting physical and emotional injuries to the victims, as outlined not only in the summary of facts but the victim impact statements which I have read and considered. [24] Your blood level was 151 which is close to two times the limit of 80 milligrams and of course the limit for you was much less because you were on a learners licence. The speed that you were travelling, not less than 73.6 kilometres. This is aggravated because it was a residential area, as well as you were driving at night. There are no mitigating factors relating to the offending. [25] I have been referred to a number of cases relating to this type of offence and they are relevant for my assessment of the starting point. In the case referred to of R v Fallowfield, the Court of Appeal recognised cases of this sort vary greatly and there is no set tariff. 1 [26] What the Court of Appeal said is: 2 The preferable approach to sentencing for cases of alcohol-affected driving causing injury or death is to seek to place the offending in its proper position in the scale of seriousness of offending, whatever the charge, and taking into account only as a factor the consequences for the victims. The maximum sentence for alcohol-impaired driving causing injury is not necessarily less than that provided in the Transport Act merely because the same offence encompasses also acts or omissions causing death. If it was ever the case, it certainly cannot now be contended that the community is sympathetic to those who drink and drive. Beyond question drunken driving causing death or injury constitutes serious offending and is condemned as such. It is more so when there is involved recklessness, bravado, stupidity, exhibitionism or other particular irresponsibility. Deliberate use of a motor vehicle after drinking, especially after long bouts of drinking, has the element of wilfulness that is repugnant and reflects disregard for the law and for the safety of others. That wilfulness takes on an added dimension of culpability when the driving is by a person who was disqualified from driving - particularly for previous drink or drug-related offending. [27] Now in that case, there were two charges of drink-driving under the influence causing injury. That was two and a half times over the legal limit and sentence of three years was upheld. 1 R v Fallowfield [1996] 3 NZLR (1966) 14 CRNZ 872 at At 662.

7 [28] Other cases referred to me was Morris v Police and a lower starting point of two years, in a similar case. 3 The appellant in that case pleaded guilty to a charge of causing injury while driving with excess blood. The reading was 163 micrograms per 100 millilitres, which was similar to this. He was driving with excessive speed and loss of control, hitting a power pole. [29] In his submissions, Mr Harvey also pointed to a decision of May v Police to suggest that an overall starting point to reflect the overall totality of offending is appropriate and I do agree with that approach. 4 [30] I have considered the authorities referred to me and I consider that an overall starting point of two years and 10 months imprisonment is appropriate. You are entitled to discount of nine months for your plea, which gets to an end sentence, one of 26 months and that will be the sentence of this Court. ADDENDUM: [31] All right, Mr Panton because you did not appear when required, the notes that I had prepared were back at Manukau, so I was working off some other notes that I had. I had intended there be a small uplift for the previous convictions, so the starting point as I have indicated is two years and 10 months, there will be an uplift of four months for the previous which it, 38 months, you will get a 10 month discount for your plea which brings it down to an end sentence of 28 months imprisonment. You will also be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver s licence for two years and that is to reflect the seriousness of what has taken place. In terms of the breach of bail for 5 December, that is withdrawn. R J Earwaker District Court Judge 3 Morris v Police [2008] DCR May v Police [2012] NZHC 624.