Free Law Dissertations - (question 1) In April 2001 A Car Full Of Young New Zealander’s Left A Public
(Question 1)
In April 2001 a car full of young New Zealander’s left a public house and headed to a local beach. The driver of the vehicle had been drinking that afternoon but had felt fit to drive. Approximately fifteen minutes into the drive, the driver failed to manoeuvre the vehicle around a sharp bend and he lost control. Consequently, the car careered into a bank on the other side of the road. Aaron Calvert, one of the passengers, was not wearing a seatbelt. He was thrown clear of the car and died at the scene of the accident.
Shortly after the accident, the driver of the vehicle, Johnathan Carter, was tested for alcohol consumption. The test results revealed a blood alcohol reading of 117/100ml over the legal limit. He pleaded guilty to a charge of driving with excess blood alcohol causing death. During sentencing, the Judge had to deliberate the suitable sentence for a man who had killed ‘his lifelong best friend.’ The law at the time of the sentencing provided that the maximum sentence was five years imprisonment.
However, previous to sentencing, the individual had consented to take part in a restorative justice conference. At that conference an arrangement was made proposing specific outcomes to the sentencing Judge. Yet, the Judge’s ruling was restricted by legal standards and legislation which did not then involve him to take into account restorative justice outcomes. At the time of the case, a sentence of incarceration virtually always followed a charge of alcohol-related driving causing death. Nevertheless, directing his comments to Johnathan, the sentencing judge relayed the following, emotive statement:
To hear the effect of the death of their eldest child on his parents would draw tears from stone. Even more moving, was their heartfelt and tearful plea, made in Court, that you, who have been like a brother to their son, and in some ways like a son to them, not be imprisoned. For them, that would be a second tragedy on top of the first, and would achieve nothing.
Following an appraisal of all the issues, the Judge decided that a fair consequence was 18 months imprisonment. He suspended that sentence for the duration on the basis that Johnathan was fairly young, he had a previous ‘almost spotless’ record, he needed rehabilitation, had ‘diminished culpability,’ had been cooperative with the Police, was repentant and there was passionate family and community support. The effects of the restorative justice conference were taken into consideration. Applying the conference agreement, the Court suspended Johnathan’s license for three years, ordered him to contribute $4,000 towards the headstone, embark on 200 hours of community service and to speak at particular assemblies at five secondary schools in his district concerning the hazards of drinking and driving.
Jonathan Carter’s case exemplifies a feasible process of dealing with crime in our communities and an improved way to consider the victim’s interests.
Dissertations - Free Law Dissertations
