THE QUEEN v CHRISTOPHER JOHN MANAWATU [1999] NZCA 23 (11 March 1999)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

ca414/98

THE QUEEN

V

CHRISTOPHER JOHN MANAWATU

Coram:	Gault J Henry J Keith J
Decision (ex parte):	11 March 1999

judgment of the court delivered by KEITH J

[1] The appellant pleaded guilty to three charges of manslaughter, one charge of reckless driving causing injury and an excess blood alcohol charge.He was sentenced to eight years imprisonment on the manslaughter charges, four years imprisonment on the reckless driving charges and three months imprisonment on the excess blood alcohol charge, all terms to be served concurrently.Mr Manawatu now appeals against his sentence.

[2] On a Sunday morning at about 9am the appellant went to a home in Timaru. He was grossly intoxicated.He continued to drink there for a further two hours before asking the occupier to lend him her car.She refused, due to the drunken state of the appellant, but agreed to lend him the car if he could find a sober driver.The appellant duly returned with a friend and borrowed the car.About an hour or so later the appellant took over the driving.He drove the car recklessly at excessive speeds, weaving from one side of the road to another.After a near miss with another vehicle when the appellant swerved onto the wrong side of the road while cornering, the appellant then accelerated down the road and lost control of the vehicle.The car hit a gutter and a tree, rolled onto its roof and struck a pole.The car continued on its roof for approximately twenty metres further down the road.Three of the passengers were killed : the appellant's brother and two of his friends.A fourth passenger was injured.The appellant was also badly injured and spent time in hospital in a coma.

[3] The appellant applied to this Court for legal aid.After consultation in accordance with section 15 of the Legal Services Act 1991, the Registrar declined to grant legal aid.An application for review of that decision by a Judge of this Court was unsuccessful.As a result the appeal has been determined on the basis of written material filed by the appellant.We have also received a letter from his mother.

[4] In his notice of appeal the appellant submitted that the sentence was manifestly excessive for two reasons. First, while the offences were serious with serious consequences, the appellant's personal circumstances should have been taken into account.The sentencing Judge did acknowledge the appellant's difficult and unsettled background, and stated that his life was entirely out of control at the time of the offences. The Judge made specific reference to the appellant's major difficulties with alcohol and substance abuse. The Court agrees with the Judge that personal circumstances do not carry much weight in a case such as the present, because of the seriousness of the offence.

[5] Secondly, the appellant claims the sentence is not in line with sentences imposed in other cases.Major changes in public attitudes to the consequences of drunk driving and reckless driving are reflected in the sentences imposed by the Courts in serious motor manslaughter cases;see eg R v Grey (1992) 8 CRNZ 523.The mitigating features in this case include the early guilty plea for which the appellant deserves credit, his genuine remorse, his own serious injuries, and the loss of his brother and best friend.However, these matters (to which his mother's concerns may be added) are far outweighed by the aggravating circumstances, which include the level of blood alcohol in the appellant's blood, over twice the legal limit, and the fact that the appellant drove the car at excessive speeds over an extended period of time.This is a shocking case of motor manslaughter, deserving a sentence near the top end of the range for such offences.The sentence is an appropriate one and it will be upheld.

[6] In his letter in support of his appeal, the appellant raises a number of other matters all but one of which appears to relate to the soundness of his conviction rather than sentence.The appeal is of course only against sentence and as mentioned already the sentencing Judge noted the early guilty plea as a mitigating factor.The appellant in fact pleaded guilty after his discharge from hospital and following the preparation of psychiatric and psychological assessments.The forensic psychiatric service concluded that there was no formal psychiatric disorder.(Both suggest the possibility of abuse treatment programmes).

[7] Notwithstanding that background we do consider the matters the appellant raises.The first is that he was not accorded his rights under the Bill of Rights since he was unable to comprehend the rights because of his mental and physical disabilities.As indicated, his convictions are based on his guilty pleas, given some time after the crash, and in any event there is no indication that any evidence on which the prosecution would have relied would have been affected by any breach.

[8] A second matter is that the Crown contended that the appellant was under the influence of drugs as well as alcohol.Whether that was so or not is irrelevant to the charges to which the appellant pleaded guilty, and the sentencing Judge makes no reference to that matter.He refers to drugs only when making an overall assessment.In any event, the presentence report records the appellant as having said to the Probation Officer that during the previous evening and into the early hours of the morning of the offence he had been drinking heavily and had consumed a number of pills.

[9] The third submission - that the car was not road worthy and that that might have been the cause of the crash - fails for much the same reasons.The appellant pleaded guilty.There was overwhelming evidence of guilt available to the prosecution.

[10] The final matter the appellant raises relates to the sentencing stage and in particular to the decision to transfer the sentencing from the High Court in Christchurch to the High Court in Timaru.That transfer followed an editorial in a Timaru newspaper calling for the sentencing to be done locally and, it seems, a request to that effect from the Timaru Crown Solicitor.That change had no consequence at all for the sentence imposed.The submission must fail.

[11] It follows that the appeal is dismissed.

Solicitor

Crown Solicitor, Timaru for the Crown