R v Cairns CA126/96 [1996] NZCA 299 (8 August 1996)

Last Updated: 28 October 2019

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA 126/96



THE QUEEN


v.


AARON DAVID CAIRNS




Coram: Thomas J Keith J Blanchard J

Judgment: 8 August 1996 (ex parte)


JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY KEITH J



After a High Court jury trial in Rotorua, the appellant was convicted of manslaughter caused by reckless driving, reckless driving causing injury, and driving with excess blood alcohol causing injury. He was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment on the first count and 3 years imprisonment on the second and third counts, all to be served concurrently, and disqualified from driving for 7 years.


The appellant appealed against conviction and sentence. The appellant applied for legal aid, which was declined after consideration of the application by three judges of this Court. The appellant has made written submissions only on his appeal against sentence. The appeal against conviction is without merit and is dismissed.
2.

On sentence, we agree with the assessment made by the trial Judge: this was “an appalling piece of driving”. The appellant and two others were on their way home after drinking all day at a party. They called a taxi but the driver refused to take them.. The appellant decided to drive the others home. The car came to the attention of the police and a chase ensued, reaching high speeds in the outskirts of Rotorua. One of the passengers asked the appellant to stop but he refused. Eventually the appellant lost control of the car through a corner, and the car struck a ditch and became briefly airborne before hitting a power pole. One of the passengers was killed, and the other was injured.


In his letter the appellant expresses his regret (it “goes beyond words”). He is undergoing an alcohol advisory course and has had advice from a psychiatrist. He now feels the need to change and acknowledges that he has a drinking problem. He would like to return to the community, his family and friends, and make amends.


These matters do not affect the assessment that we originally made that the sentence was well within the range available to the Judge. The sentence is not excessive. The matters the appellant mentions will be relevant to the parole process.


Accordingly the appeal against sentence is also dismissed.