An appalling judgement
August 31st, 2012 at 1:02 pm by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
An investment banker who ran over a man, breaking both his legs, was being a protective dad trying to keep his daughter safe, a court has heard.
Guy Hallwright, 60, has been sentenced to 250 hours of community work, banned from driving for 18 months and ordered to pay $20,000 reparations to the man he drove over.
The sentence per se is bad enough but what really aggravates me, but the comments by the Judge. On the sentence though consider this from another story:
“$20,000, that’s it?” his victim said yesterday.
Mr Kim still hobbles, two years after he was run over by Hallwright on Mt Eden Rd.
His lower legs are swollen, bruised and scarred and he winced as he slowly lowered himself to sit on the steps of the South Auckland warehouse he calls home.
He said the surgery on his legs – he would probably need six operations in total – would cost about $150,000.
And on the comments by Judge Neave
Judge Neave criticised media this morning for referring to the offence as a “hit and run”, saying Hallwright was driving “away” from the situation, which had escalated in seriousness by the actions of Mr Kim banging on the bonnet.
“What I know of your character … I consider it highly unlikely you would have driven at him,” Judge Neave said.
He said describing the incident as a hit and run was “irresponsible and inappropriate”.
Yes, just because you hit him, and ran away, is no reason to call it a hit and run. What is fucking irresponsible is running someone over and what is inappropriate is not stopping and calling medical assistance.
Judge Neave criticised elements of the publicity and, during this morning’s sentencing, suppressed aspects of Hallwright’s employment.
The suppressed information was a factor taken into account by Judge Neave who said Hallwright had been the subject of “a degree of prurient media interest that can only be described as vulgar in the extreme”.
Judge Neave said as a result of media reports on Hallwright, “less-considered members of the public” had responded to him and his employer in ways which were “as offensive as they were inappropriate”.
Judge Neave said Hallwright was a contributor to society with a “spotless reputation” and “impeccable character”.
Impeccable – apart from running someone over in your car and not stopping to call medical assistance. Spotless – so this doesn’t even qualify as a spot.
I hate this crap – you are “one of us”, a “contributor to society” so how dare you be criticized for running the angry Chinaman over. I couldn’t stop the jury finding you guilty, but I can tell the media off about how you really are the victim.
It is worse as reported by Stuff:
Judge Neave told the court that Hallwright was one of society’s contributors who had suffered humiliation because of the Crimes Act charge.
He criticised the crown saying the charge, which a jury found proven, should have been laid under the weaker Land Transport Act.
Hallwright had suffered severe humiliation “well in excess of that required by the gravity of the offence”, the judge said.
Good God. I thought victim impact statements were for the victim, not for the criminal. Poor diddums – he got humiliated because he ran someone over and left the scene without calling medical assistance.
The judge condemned media for their “unhealthy degree of glee of the misfortunate of someone who might be in a more fortunate position….
“Indeed I have wondered at some length whether or not if this had been an encounter between two teenage boys on the backstreets of Manukau whether we would be here today.”
Yeah, because no one cares if black boys run over black boys. As Whale said, if it had happened in Manukau, then Mr Hallwright would probably have a lot more than $20,000 to worry about.
Kim had claimed to be in front of the car when he was hit, but Judge Neave said given Hallwright’s character he did consider it highly unlikely.
What a pity, that annoying jury disagreed.
This is a good reminder why we have jury trials. The jury system has its flaws, but this case doesn’t do a lot to bolster the respect for the judiciary.
I often have criticised sentences, but normally am very careful not to criticise the Judge themselves. They are doing a tough job. But when a Judge makes comments like this, then I make a rare exception and will criticise the Judge. His comments were appalling.
Under the government’s three strikes law, Judge Neave said he was required to warn Hallwright this was the first of his three strikes.
Excellent.
Tags: Judge Neave
August 31st, 2012 at 1:10 pm
If the driver had been Chinese, Maori etc and the victim a lawyer or doctor. . .
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 1:11 pm
You mean he gets another 2 chances? He was convicted of GBH…I believe his daughter was in the car and it reversed over him again? The judge accused the media of schadenfreude. Mr kim is apparently now a man of little standing in the judges eyes. Moral..never bang on the bonnet of a saab,leave that sort of behaviour to former Akld all Blacks.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 1:16 pm
I was expecting a custodial sentence at the very least significant home detention this is is a joke and not a funny one.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 1:17 pm
Here’s the judge live on 3 News: Forsyth Barr analyst sentenced for road rage incident
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 1:18 pm
Whew! I’m off the hook then. I’m a prime suspect in a “minor motor vehicle accent”. Even though the cops are looking for a guy with a goatee and I’m totally clean shaven.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 1:20 pm
This sort of matey sentencing is pathetic. I hope the crown appeals the sentence.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 1:25 pm
I just reeks of some old boys network doesn’t it? Proves that judges are quite removed normal everyday society.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 1:25 pm
Terrible.
If you aren’t going to jail him, fine.
But then you should reward Mr Chinese man $200k. Mr Investment Banker can afford it, and is bloody lucky he isn’t going to jail. The Crown absolutely should appeal. From what I hear, he reversed back over the man too.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 1:28 pm
Dave Armstrong @malosilima
Vote:Breaking news: Investment banker breaks man’s legs and gets community service. Sensible Sentencing gets laryngitis?
August 31st, 2012 at 1:28 pm
FFS, he drives a saab. We expect decency from this fuckwit? He showed his daughter what level of personal responsibility he holds dear. Please appeal crown, and stick this loser in prison.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 1:31 pm
A chick has an ACCIDENT when high on P and receives eight years
Vote:Prick DELIBERATELY runs a man over and gets 250 hours of community work
severely fucked up
August 31st, 2012 at 1:35 pm
250 Hours Community Work? What a bloody disgrace.
Really? Her own records?
Perhaps Mr Hallwright isn’t the only moron in the family…
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 1:35 pm
A Chinese man in Tauranga was killed last year by a runaway van. The judge said the handbrake was knowingly faulty and the driver should have followed the road code rules to park in gear and turn the wheels against the line of direction. His family got awarded $5,000 in compensation from the driver.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 1:37 pm
If it was a “hit and run” he didn’t run very far – I remember TV footage of him approaching and talking to the police at the scene of the accident, while all the emergency services were still there.
[DPF: Police told him to return to the scene]
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Well, no they’d be in the Manukau District Court, obviously.
Also it seems very unlikely the guilty party would get off so lightly for using a car in a potentially lethal way and leaving the scene.
Perhaps the comments about the media interest are fair to some degree, the two teenagers in Manukau may not have attracted the attention of the media in the same way, but if they had it’s highly likely the judge would give a fuck about damage to their reputation.
Also I think Forsyth Barr’s reputation was brought into disrepute not by the media coverage but by their banker RUNNING A MAN OVER AND LEAVING THE SCENE.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 1:38 pm
@Griff
I assume you are referring to the Gang Moll who killed her daughter who is still to be sentenced???? While this case is in itself ratshit, you can not claim that it is an accident when on P.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 1:45 pm
>during this morning’s sentencing, suppressed aspects of Hallwright’s employment
Googling the man’s name suggests he is an analyst at Forsyth Barr. How do I know if I’ve breached the suppression order? Is there a copy of it online?
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Perverse,reverse outrage going at full tilt here.
Rich white prick runs over foreigner.Judge in cahoots with banker!!!!!Why don’t you all join the Occupy movement,that’s wht this sounds like.
A “progressive” lynch mob.
Each case on its own merits.
Kim drives a Merc (could be rich).
Blasts horn at car in front giving way to pedestrians…..that’s rude and aggressive
Overtakes and berates polite driver of first car…..that could be an assault and could put the polite driver in fear
Gets out and bangs on polite drivers vehicle….confirms polite drivers fears,criminal behaviour.
Gets in front of car (stupid )
Gets run over (too fucking bad)……Darwin award as far as I’m concerned.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Gotta agree with DPF on this one, it’s not been good from the start.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 2:11 pm
(Police told him to return),he had already fronted up to them before that,so it wasn’t a hit and run as generally understood.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 2:13 pm
I just checked and I am wrong she has not been sentience yet
Vote:still she will get far more for an accident than this prick gets for a deliberate action
I find that abhorrent 250 hours community service for grievous bodily harm
August 31st, 2012 at 2:16 pm
I think its all well and good to make postings here based on judgements of the judgement; but actually the judge sat through several days of evidence and witness questioing and no doubt his response is based on that.
Vote:My reading of this and earlier stories is that there was road rage shown by the “victim” and actually Mr Hallwright had something to fear…. he did not do nothing…. in fact he called police shortly after the incident…. what he didn’t do is stay in the same place as the man who he had been escaping from… that’s not really surprising.
August 31st, 2012 at 2:31 pm
williamsheridan said “what he didn’t do is stay in the same place as the man who he had been escaping from”
Because even with two broken legs and being freshly run over, a small Asian male poses a terrible threat to man in his car. And what of the daughter? What if the man with the broken legs smashed his way into the Saab and assaulted her?
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 2:56 pm
What’s with all the Saab shit?
The idiot who provoked the whole incident was driving a Merc.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 3:06 pm
“The jurors today heard further details of Hallwright’s 111 call moments after the incident.
Hallwright sounded calm as he told the police emergency calltaker how he had driven over the man.
“He came to the car to try and attack me and I just drove through him,” he told the calltaker.
He said an “Asian guy” had tooted at him at the traffic lights before he had given “the finger”.
The calltaker told him it was “frightening that it has to come to this” and asked how he was.
“We’re fine,” Hallwright replied, after giving his name, phone number and address in the upmarket suburb of Parnell.
He told police he had to take his daughter to a recording studio and asked them to come back to him later.
“If they could come back to me and with it then, it would be really good.”
The 111 caller said road rage was getting common.
Hallwright finished the call by saying: “I just don’t know why I reacted this way, I mean, it was so stupid.”
Moments later police called Hallwright back on his cellphone to ask him to return to the scene.
“We need to deal with it right now … It will be worse if you don’t.”
Hallwright agreed to return.”
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 3:14 pm
Bullshit. I hate it when people say that “the Judge is wise, we must listen to Him”. I remember that dickhead from that Backbenchers show saying the same about the original sentence for his comedian mate who sexually assaulted his daughter.
The judge is an idiot and borderline corrupt. “From what I know of your character… I consider it highly unlikely you would have driven at him” I hate that statement, actually more than “you make people laugh”. What an absolutely revolting thing to say by a judge. I’m sure it’s the same reason ex-judge Michael Lance escaped charges for keying someone’s car.
This judge had a preconceived notion about the case, and he did not let the evidence affect it.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 3:19 pm
This is absolute F**king Bullsh*t! This Judge needs to be booted he basically said that as you are a rich white guy (like me) there is no way it could really have been your fault and I sorry that I can’t award you damages for that naughty Asian throwing himslef at your car!
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 3:32 pm
Kowtow said “What’s with all the Saab shit?”
What’s with owning a Saab? Car of choice for today’s investment banker?
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 3:38 pm
Seem to be fault on both sides to me. Or I seem to be missing something.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 3:41 pm
A hit and run is usually when someone hits someone and drives away, thinking if they scram they will get away with it.
This guy drove away from someone and called the police. Hardly your typicial hit and run.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Scrubone – There is fault on both sides however provocation isn’t a defence and hitting an unarmed man with a car isn’t reasonable use of force for self defense.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 3:58 pm
NEAVE….”What I know of your character … I consider it highly unlikely you would have driven at him,” Judge Neave told Hallwright.”
Surely NEAVE should have refused to hear the case and appeared as a Defence Character witness instead. To make himself a character witness from the bench seems irregular. He should also have clarified whether his knowledge of the character was from a client business perspective or of a social nature.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 4:02 pm
Scrubone said “This guy drove away from someone and called the police.”
And told the police he wanted to go and drop his daughter off at her recording session. Running someone over was to him no excuse for missing an appointment.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 4:25 pm
I’m quietly wondering which of the two ended up receiving the larger compensation payment from Hallwright – Mr Kim, or Judge Neave…….
Pathetic.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 4:26 pm
paul henry:
A Saab would only be the car of choice for someone who wears grey shoes….
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 4:40 pm
You could not ask for a clearer example of an “old boy’s club” existing in the judiciary than this. Prejudiced, self-important men watching each other’s backs. Diddums indeed.
At very least this needs to be appealed. I hope the criminal record spoils his travel plans.
And for the record, Mr Kim Sung Jin is undoubtedly Korean. Not Chinese.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 4:41 pm
It really is time for elected judges. Judges must be accountable if they make poor calls.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 6:10 pm
I thought it was a great judgement.
Anyone who runs over, or through, road idiots and no-hopers gets my vote.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 6:11 pm
Elaycee (2,731) Says:
August 31st, 2012 at 4:26 pm
paul henry:
What’s with owning a Saab? Car of choice for today’s investment banker?
A Saab would only be the car of choice for someone who wears grey shoes….
… with a brown suit.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 6:11 pm
Lodge fellows?
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 6:20 pm
Was this the same judge who gave Tony Vietch a slap on the hand for breaking the back of his ex partner?
It really is time to admit that if you are white and well connected then your chances of going to jail are very slim irrespective of how guilty you might be.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 6:22 pm
I must admit that I am surprised that we have not seen the usual apologists for what passes as our legal system rushing to defend one of their own.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 6:39 pm
Saabs used to be good cars, with extra-steep conical section shaped windscreens to prevent snow from building up during winter driving.
The obvious car you’d choose for driving around Mount Eden…
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 6:44 pm
No question the judge comes out looking stupid, incompetent, pompous and fixated about dealing with “one of us.” Easy to see how well he fits with his peers. Given all the circumstances I’m not sure that the sentence is so inappropriate, but the judges fawning comments about Hallwright are way, way out of line.
However, dont judge Hallwright too harshly. Remember the Korean made all the moves and was obviously a nasty, agressive bastard. Incidents like this can be very scary when the other party seems deranged or outright crazy. How do any of us know how we’d react.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 6:47 pm
Yes it would be interesting to know the full story of how the fight started.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 6:56 pm
@RRM
Me too. I seem to remember that Hallwright initially got out of his car first, and shut the door on the Merc driver as he was getting out – that’s probably not accurate, I’m doing this from memory (I’m being called for dinner) – but something like that?
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 7:01 pm
Veitch’s judge was Jan Doogue or some such.That attempt is ,like standing in front of Swedish engineering and the forces of physics and nature ,a fail.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 9:30 pm
Dunno. I can interpret two ways.
1. Guy goes road rage on your car. Banker gets worried for his safety and drives away, runs crazy guy over. Doesn’t know he’s got broken legs, so doesn’t stop in case he gets more road rage (particularly after running him over). Calls the cops. Sort of sounds reasonable.
2. Guy goes road rage on your car. Banker gets pissed and deliberately drives him over, then reverses over him. Then drives off, calls cops to say “busted guy on road, but I’m going to an appointment, back later”.
Neither is a great story, but if the first is the one that the judge agreed happened, then sentence is perhaps about right.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 9:44 pm
“However, dont judge Hallwright too harshly. Remember the Korean made all the moves and was obviously a nasty, agressive bastard.”
Sorry? Where do you get that from.
Hallright approached the Korean guys car first, opened his door, shouted at him and then slammed the door shut. The Korean guy then got out of his car and approached Hallrights car. Hallright then drove over him. And yet it’s the victim in your mind whose the ‘nasty aggressive bastard’.
What is also interesting is that his daughter made a statement to Police in which she stated she was screaming at her dad to stop as he had just ran over someone and then at trial stated a different version of events breaking down in tears. Not exactly what a father with his daughters interests in mind would have put her through….
This is a Judge rebuking a Jury’s decision based on what can only be his own personal and racial prejudices. Absolutely shameful.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 9:49 pm
Moral of the story: Don’t get investment advice from a man who’s judgement is so bad he bought a Saab!
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 10:00 pm
More of the same. Maiming and killing with a car is a lot less bad than other forms of maiming and killing in NZ. For some reason.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 10:14 pm
I sincerely hope that the Solicitor-General appeals the sentence on the basis that it is manifestly inadequate.
This is almost as bad as the recent decision by Justice Mary Peters to sentence James Hall to 12 months home detention when he broke his daughter’s leg in five places.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 10:22 pm
Moral of the story….establishment niggers will generally win out over chinamen, brownies & real niggers.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 10:28 pm
More bollocks. Cos the judge had the balls to stick it to the media on this they’ve taken it to heart.
How many other defendants get this kind of scrutiny……he lives in Parnell house worth……
Fuck, most repeaters only google their shitty shallow coverage.
They don’t like it up ‘em.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 10:42 pm
I think Dexter’s comment shines a little more light on this. Hallwright is by no means unfairly maligned.
Remember this: Road rage victim tries to rebuild life
Neither guy is blameless, there was some tit-for-tat idiot-fuelled escalation, but it is Hallwright that crossed the line and took it to physical harm. Driving away is inexcusable. This is Mt Eden Road in Hallwright’s home-turf. He breaks both legs of a guy and drives off fearing his safety? Daughter (that he is supposedly protecting) is screaming for him to stop!
Balance of probabilities is that he was in a fit of arrogant rage himself.
FFS. When I moved to Seoul people warned me about driving – and it was mostly Koreans that warned me. I can tell that none of them understood the implication of living for 10 years in Auckland NZ. Korean drivers are polite compared to Aucklanders.
I had similar warnings when picking up rental cars in Los Angeles, Barcelona, Paris. All of them pussies compared to Auckland drivers.
Auckland: honing aggressive driving skills since ages ago.
Vote:August 31st, 2012 at 10:50 pm
That’s the second article mentioning how much the guys house is worth. Where’s the news value in that,other than the attack the rich white prick angle?
Special forces? So the Korean’s a trained killer,no wonder the honkey was scared and had to get away,Korean was probably all fired up ready to do some waky doo on the polite motorist who was giving way to pedestrians when this guuy blew him up!
11 years in Noo Zealand and he still needs a translator?
Vote:September 1st, 2012 at 12:53 am
What the hell has this guy’s skin colour got to do with anything?
Vote:Do we need to mention former All Black’s of a darker skin colour who have got off rather lightly after actually killing people in road accidents??
I too was surprised by this sentence but skin colour is not a factor….
September 1st, 2012 at 6:48 am
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10830973
Compare and contrast to Crown Law’s attitude re: Dotcom. I would not be surprised at all to learn the Judge was doing this because Hallright’s a brother Mason. (Masons are expected to support each other and the higher up the chain you go the more that support is required, not optional, and regardless of what the law says. It’s the “is there no help for the poor widow’s son” principle.
Vote:September 1st, 2012 at 7:28 am
A bus driver hit a pedestrian in Cathedral Square. The pedestrian had the ipod in his ears. Witnesses agreed with the bus driver as to the position of the pedestrian [ I forget the details- found at fault]. The judge said: “I’ve seen you bus drivers looking and driving at people” (or similar). Driving a bus you have to be positive e.g if you put your indicator on to change lanes you have to move quickly or the turbo charged car behind will drive around you to the front. In other words a bus is seen as slow moving because of it’s size (even though the driver may be on a schedule) and people (pedestrians) react unconsciously.
Vote:September 1st, 2012 at 8:14 am
‘backster (1,572) Says:
August 31st, 2012 at 3:58 pm
NEAVE….”What I know of your character … I consider it highly unlikely you would have driven at him,” Judge Neave told Hallwright.”
Surely NEAVE should have refused to hear the case and appeared as a Defence Character witness instead. To make himself a character witness from the bench seems irregular. He should also have clarified whether his knowledge of the character was from a client business perspective or of a social nature.’
That’s a beaut.
For a guy that was busy taking his daughter some where it’s remarkable he found the time to chase another car, jump out threaten the driver, retreat under pressure before driving over the man having temporarily forgotten how important it was for his daughter to make her appointment.
Hallwright is an ‘a’ grade, privileged arse wipe, and a coward to boot. He was willing to have a confrontation on the basis that Lee didn’t resist or was scared of him but he didn’t have the guts to stand his ground. Then of course he cries and whimpers in Court.
Vote:September 1st, 2012 at 9:25 am
Some Christchurch Boy’s High boys in a 4×4 mowed down a security guard outside Chc Girls High crippling him for life. He tried to stop the driver but the driver defiantly drove forward. A father (lawyer): “they’re good kids”.
Vote:September 1st, 2012 at 10:00 am
DPF – agreed
Vote:September 1st, 2012 at 10:13 am
Three Years, mate
Vote:September 1st, 2012 at 12:14 pm
I wasn’t going to comment on this matter. I initially made a comment yesterday but then thought better of it and deleted it. But then I put myself in Judge Neave’s position and asked if I would like someone to defend me at least somewhat and decided that I should say something.
I know Judge Neave. I consider him a friend, although it has been a while since I last saw him. He was a very, very, good lawyer, firstly as a Crown prosecutor and then as a defence lawyer. He is an upright and honourable man, as well as being a very learned judge. Every person who has implied that Judge Neave is in any way incompetent or, worse, corrupt, has no clue about what they are saying and could not be further from the truth. He is an example of impartiality that some other judges would do well to emulate.
With regards to sentencing, I understand that his sentencing is generally considered to be slightly tougher than average. Moreoever, he passes hundreds, if not thousands, of sentences every year, but apparently having one that everybody disagrees with makes you either incompetent or corrupt. I don’t understand that, but never mind.
Every judge has the right to question a jury verdict. It is uncommon but not rare. Likewise, every judge has the right, and the duty, when passing sentence, to give their view of the matter and to set out in the sentencing remarks the basis of the sentence.
Moreover, and contrary to what DPF and others appear to be suggesting, a judge is not only entitled to take previous good character into account when passing sentence, but is instructed by the Sentencing Act that they must do so. It surprises me that so many here want a criminal’s past bad behaviour to be considered at every point of their case, but when a man has impeccable character prior to committing an offence then to refer to it is heavily criticised.
The sentence may or may not be appropriate. I note that the charge was causing GBH with reckless disregard, which means that the Crown were not alleging that the defendant did this intentionally. That is an extremely important point in this matter. Had he been found guilty of doing this intentionally then there is no way that the defendant would have avoided prison. I can also say that an offer of $20,000 in reparation will get a lot of credit in the NZ courts, often reducing a sentence quite significantly. In addition, the judge must take the actions of the victim into account, again required by the Sentencing Act. I would point out the comments of lawyer Graeme Newell in Stuff, with which I agree
I agree with the Judge with regards the role of the media. The court reporting media is neither consistent nor impartial. Nor are they generally that intelligent or knowledgeable, but that is another story. But the media will pay an interest to this sort of case simply because of who or what the participants are when almost exactly the same sort of case but with different actors will get no interest at all. Had the defendant not been a wealthy man, it is unlikely that the media would have shown any interest in this case at all.
Obviously the outcome of the incident for the victim was severe. That may mean that the sentence was too low and the Crown may appeal. That is a decision that they have to make.
For those reasons, I very much disagree with this post, and most of the subsequent comments.
Vote:September 1st, 2012 at 12:53 pm
FES
Vote:Thank you for adding balance. I have had limited contact with Judge Neave but am aware of his solid reputation. As you say, it is very easy to leap to conclusions on extremely limited information. By way of example, there are suggestions on this thread that he should never have presided given that he, supposedly, knew the accused. There is no evidence whatsoever that he had any prior knowledge of the accused at all. He was aware of the accused’s reputation because the submissions in mitigation would have addressed them at considerable length. It is also entirely possible that evidence of good character was given at the trial.
The one thing that does concern me about this case and, to some extent, the Judge’s comments, is the “hit and run” aspect. From what I have read, the accused must have known that of the contact between the car and the victim and the term “hit and run” does seem apt in the circumstances
September 1st, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Nookin,
I had a think about that, and I tend to agree with Judge Neave that this should not be described as a hit and run. The main reason for that is that the defendant was actually attempting to depart from an incident that had already occurred when the injury was sustained through his recklessness.
The fact that he stopped and reported the incident tends to go against what we usually call a ‘hit and run’, where the driver hits a pedestrian/cyclist/vehicle, and then ‘runs’ and attempts to avoid detection. The reason that such incidents are punished more harshly than normal is the attempt to avoid detection, rather than the initial incident. That isn’t so much a factor here, and when combined with the fact that the defendant was actually attempting to leave a fraught situation that Mr Kim appeared to be trying to continue.
In some ways it is similar to the trial relating to death of a woman at the Lyttelton wharves a few years ago. In that case the driver ran over a protester and did not stop (somewhat understandably) but that was not a ‘hit and run’ either. That case should never have been brought to trial either (to quote a High Court judge), but that is another story.
For that reason, I don’t see this as having the same culpability as what we would normally describe as a ‘hit and run’ incident and it shouldn’t be described as such.
Vote:September 1st, 2012 at 1:30 pm
FE Smith – while I agree with most of what you say (to the extent I have any knowledge of it), I have to take issue with this claim:
1. A charge of causing GBH with reckless disregard is a charge of intentional action. It alleges he intentionally drove into the victim. What it doesn’t allege was that he intentionally drove into the victim with the intention of injuring him/causing GBH. Rather, he intentionally drove his care into someone, knowing it might injure him/cause GBH and didn’t care whether it did or not.
2. In fact, the Crown were alleging he had an intention to injure the victim. He was charged with GBH with intent to injure. The jury acquitted on that charge, and convicted on the lesser charge of GBH with reckless disregard.
Vote:September 1st, 2012 at 1:32 pm
F E Smith I appreciate your measured tone and respect your credentials.
But you say
” an offer of $20,000 in reparation will get a lot of credit in the NZ courts, often reducing a sentence quite significantly.”
Now $20,000 to me is a huge sum of money. But I suspect for Hallwright it isn’t.
This is precisely why the media have gotten excited. A wealthy man is buying his way out of trouble.
Vote:September 1st, 2012 at 1:52 pm
Graeme,
Which was the main point that I was making.
I agree that the action that caused the injury must be intentional. However, the result need not be desired nor hoped for. I would argue that it would be equally valid to say that he “drove his car in a manner, knowing that it might caused a person injury/GBH, and did so regardless of that risk. I don’t think that ‘didn’t care’ is necessarily a included part of it. That implies an element of unconcern, whilst it is perfectly possible to argue that the defendant did care but took the risk anyway due to other considerations. That would still qualify as being reckless, but is another way of interpreting the action.
I wasn’t aware of point 2. Thanks for alerting me to it. What it means, of course, is that the jury was given the option of finding that the defendant intentionally caused the injuries and found that he did not do so. I still say that such a finding is a significant factor. In fact, I think it probably increases the significance of the verdict.
Paul Henry,
except that we shouldn’t really take the wealth of the individual into account when it comes to reparations. The Court looks at the sum offered rather than the ability to pay. There is an argument that all fines/reparation should be according to income/wealth, but that leads to $500,000 speeding fines for billionaires, so we don’t really go for that argument so much in NZ.
Vote:September 1st, 2012 at 2:14 pm
By the way, does anybody know what the Crown was asking for in their sentencing submissions?
Vote:September 1st, 2012 at 2:35 pm
$500,000 speeding fines for billionaires, whats wrong with that? I’d be cool with that.
“In Switerland, a 53-year-old man get a nearly $290,000 fine for driving 85 mph in a 50 mph zone. His annual income was more than $820,000 and was driving a red Ferrari Testarossa at the time. The fact that he was a “traffic menace” with previous violation was taken into account.” (Traffic-Fines-Proportional-to-Income).
Switzerland is cool with it, as is our new nemesis Finland.
Vote:September 1st, 2012 at 6:08 pm
You’re giving Judge Neave a break he doesn’t deserve F E Smith. For all the his trumpeting of the ‘media’s’ reporting it still looks like a hit and run to me, and probably to a good deal of the public.
I don’t think he was entitled to decide that Hallwright’s character minimised what he did in some way. Neave seems to have used the character issue to minimise the crime. I understand from what you say he was required to take into account Hallwright’s character but in this case he used it as mitigation as to the extent or intention, probably also valid – but did it fit the broad facts we know?
I say no. First of all Hallwright pursued the confrontation to the extent of making it a physical confrontation, which he did so angrily. So anger is definitely an element. Hallwright was angry, and by the report angry out of proportion to a minor incident where nothing substantial had happened more than might do so a few hundred times a day where one Auckland motorist might give another the finger. As far as I know there was no evidence of ‘cooling down.’ When Hallwright left, or was leaving, there was still anger in the air. He hadn’t apologised and could be said to be leaving, still angry but having realised that the victim wasn’t overcome into submission by Hallwright opening his car door and yelling at him. So this to me also indicates elements of past character used to diminish the ongoing incident which was about to escalate.
At this point Hallwright is getting back into his car and the victim has alighted from his and is in front of Hallwright, or at least within his vision according to the evidence and banging on the bonnet. Here is the next part that goes wrong according to what little we know of the sentencing comments, because the next mitigation aspect comes from the fact that the victim is now the ‘attacker’ because he is banging on the bonnet. It seems some allowance is made for this, the person first pursued and confronted is remonstrating with the assailant, if not assailant to that point – certainly soon after without any doubt. The ‘allowance’ seems to ‘extend’ to the point of allowing the attacker cause for fear. But whatever is the attacker’s mind, or speculated to be in his mind – he knows that the victim is to the fore of the vehicle when he ‘decides’ to leave.
This is when the sentencing logic totally loses me. Judge Neave says that Hallwright was in the act of leaving when he RAN OVER the victim’s legs. I agree that Hallwright’s fortitude by this point seems to have evaporated to jelly but he was in fact sitting in a running, high powered vehicle, approaching a tonne or more in weight, knew Mr Kim was in front of him or at least in a position where he might be run over without proper care if Hallwright was reckless enough to continue to attempt to drive off from the confrontation he had instigated. Now, at this point, Hallwright has apparently become a protective dad whose earlier ‘protective nature’ caused him to enter a chase type confrontation. Still no sign that Hallwright has cooled down, willing to get out of his car and say he is calling the police or to apologise and admit his behaviour had got out of hand. Instead he continues his ‘decision’ to leave which will be his explanation for running over Kim.
We also know that he was aware he hit Kim but didn’t stop despite a reasonable expectation of death or injury for anybody run over by a vehicle of 1 tonne more or less. It’s here that Hallwright seems to get the most credit because the theme continues that he was driving away, of course driving away despite knowing he had run over Lee who by some reports was lying on the road screaming. He knew he had hit him and that he was injured, presumably, bright fellow that he is, understanding the likely life threatening injuries that result from people being run over. But he continued his leaving the scene in what could be assumed by his account as a orderly way, rather that in the obvious, to most, was a way in which he had no concern for the injuries he had inflicted, fairly being able to be seen as suggesting that he had intended the injuries because he didn’t stop.
I don’t know the time space before his ‘instinct’ sharpened that he was in deep do dos and he rang the police but even then his first concern was that he take his daughter to an appointment of some sort she had. A mixed message from the earlier claim that he was leaving because he was being protective of her.
So the Judge’s reported comments on character, description of the incident don’t for me tie in with the narrative. Character has supplanted intention to a remarkable degree, to a point where it seems to say there was no recklessness, no contribution to the altercation, and no reasonable cause to stop immediately knowing that a serious injury had occurred or was likely to have occurred, and that Hallwright at least should have rendered assistance. Another interesting aspect F E Smith is that I stopped writing this to go and check the gears on my vehicle, something which I hope Judge Neave might also do at some time. My vehicle actually has a reverse gear and I suspect the $120,000+ model of Hallwright’s also has a reverse gear. That got me to thinking that if one ‘decided to leave’ by reason of a recently adopted decision to protect one’s daughter from a confrontation that one had started, and knowing there was a person to the fore of the vehicle because they were banging on the bonnet, and being a fine person of good character and intelligence to match, simply reverse backwards to safe position from which to turn or drive forward avoiding the person in danger of being struck by the vehicle. What’d ya reckon?
I reckon (think) Hallwright used his vehicle as a weapon, recklessly so, drove off and only stopped to report the matter for his own reasons and not out of concern for the person he had run over. That driving away, and attempt to relegate the situation to something that could be addressed later, when other priorities were sorted, looks like contempt for the injured person and for the responsibility Hallwright should have taken from the outset. Probably like you and others I’ve thought about this quite a bit today and I’m left feeling that a lot of people will justifiably feel that the sentence, and the logic applied to formulating the decision of the sentence reflects, first of all badly, on Mr Kim’s expectations of what the sentence should have been, but also on the publics.
Vote:September 1st, 2012 at 7:20 pm
Nostalgia: Well said. Spot on.
Vote:September 1st, 2012 at 8:25 pm
Nostalgia,
Yours is an interpretation that is certainly possible. Judge Neave, who sat through the trial, obviously disagrees with you. From what Graeme E said, the Crown would have agreed with you.
The jury disagrees with you on that point. They must have found that he didn’t.
not really possible in conjunction with your first point,
Can I point out that this began when
The press reports don’t give any innocent explanation for this, so I presume that Mr Kim followed the defendant on purpose.
They don’t have to. In this case, the previous good character of the defendant has nothing to do with interpreting the events that happened. They are mitigating with regards to sentence, not guilt. Of course, it may have influenced the jury to find that he did not intentionally run down Mr Kim. That is also a possibility.
I thought it was a Saab 9-3 convertible? That was, from memory, never worth $120,000. Mr Kim’s Mercedes possibly could have been worth that much, however. Neither of which points is relevant to you saying that he could have reversed. Or, given that he had just run over Mr Kim, perhaps simply stopping might have been a btter idea? I won’t argue with that; I would simply note that the NZ Police would most likely say that in this sort of confrontation the best thing to do is to leave, rather than to continue the confrontation. The defendant was doing the right thing by leaving, notwithstanding comments earlier suggesting that he was being a coward. By going in front of the defendant’s car and banging on it, Mr Kim was trying to continue a confrontation that he did not have to continue. It does not reflect well on him, either.
That is not to suggest that he deserved to be run over. Simply to note that this incident does not appear to have been all one sided.
I generally put little store on what the victim’s expectations are. I find that they can vary wildly, from not caring, to simply wanting an apology, to demanding imprisonment when it isn’t even an option.
I would point out that I appear to be not the only lawyer who thinks this is not necessarily an inappropriate sentence. Mr Newell noted that it was within range for this type of offending, so all of the outrage in the world should not take it outside of the proper range.
We also don’t know what the Crown asked for. I wonder if your attitude would be different if the Crown is found not to have asked for a custodial sentence?
I still say that the criticism of Judge Neave is unfair. If the Crown appeals and the Court of Appeal increases the sentence, then, sure, say he got it wrong. But the reasons ascribed to here by most of the commenters are just pure bile, rather than being rational or thought out.
Yours, Nostalgia, is one of the few exceptions, and I admire your thinking it through. To be honest, I would have thought that perhaps some CD or HD might have been on the cards, but given the verdict, and what must have been some glowing character references, I cannot see that imprisonment was going to happen. Had the jury found him guilty on the first count that Graeme alerted us to then perhaps a 2-3 year sentence might have been on the cards, but not with s189(2) and not in these circumstances.
Vote:September 1st, 2012 at 9:45 pm
There was a similar incident in September 2006 where a person was run over by a driver who had parked inappropriately in a disabled carpark at Foodtown Browns Bay. This person suffered serious leg injuries, hospital and surgery, subsequent to advising the driver that he had no right to park there. The driver left the scene – but was tracked down by Police the next day from information supplied by witnesses. The driver – Graeme McDonald – was subsequently prosecuted in 2007 and convicted. His sentence was trivial compared to that of Guy Hallwright.
Vote:September 2nd, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Thanks F E Smith. I had forgotten or was mistaken about Kim following Hallwright, though it is certainly true that Hallwright took that as some kind of invitation to approach the other man in his car, open the door and so on. Apart from that I remain with the same questions and observations regarding what followed. Which are in fact the things that make this sentencing look out of the water. Having said that I’ve made little comment on what the sentence should have been because I don’t really know. It does look light though to some of us.
I’ve made no comment on the actions of Kim whose behaviour certainly played a part, nor to comments of his – mainly because they give no further explanation of how the sentence was arrived at. I did mention cowardly behaviour and in the context of Hallwright leaving. You are absolutely right that his leaving or removing himself in some way was the right thing to do – but only if it is a given that he could not have done so without running over Kim. However, a year or two later when the dust has apparently settled (and speaking purely about the sentencing now) I was looking for answers to some of the questions I raised – those answers to have come from the defendant himself and commented on by the Judge in the sentencing decision. It doesn’t seem that Hallwright has fairly appreciated his role in the injuries caused because he has offered inconsistent excuses as to why he left the scene, and no explanation at all (that I’ve read anyway) as to why he wouldn’t have appreciated the significance of the injuries or of why they were of no apparent concern to him when he belatedly rang the police offering to come by ‘later’ or words to that effect. I guess I’m saying that I would have expected the Judge to comment on that, and for Hallwright not to have apparently appreciated any of that does seem cowardly.
I may be struggling to look for an ideal, that the defendant in arguing that it was a terrible accident would at least allow how some particulars of the incident ‘looked’ that cast him in a bad light. If he admitted through Davidson to have acted like an idiot, lost control, panicked, been only concerned about himself and in retrospect being able to both admit and recognise that I don’t think I would have registered any disappointment. But from the limited information it appears to have only been registered how ‘good’ he is and criticism of the media. This is also the point where Judge Neave seems to have been off track. However, had he (Neave) been saying that he found some things in the narrative hard to accept, or that he rejected some and that reflected badly on the defendant with a ‘however’ toward the mitigating circumstances I could say, or believe, he had grasped the concerns of the inevitable public interest.
It was Judge Neave that commented on the media surely understanding that would bring more scrutiny upon his sentencing decision. None of this was helped by an eye-witness reporting on the front page that it was indeed a hit and run that he had seen and that he was the person that stayed with the injured man throughout the entire time from injury until being removed to hospital. All the comment about Kim banging on the bonnet and so forth seems overplayed compared to his being run over – a point of public interest. Personally I don’t give a damn about Hallwright’s profession and think it has nothing to do with it, it’s the arrogance of justification and the actions afterwards that seem to speak most about the man and I can’t see how any media comments have created that. Nor can I see that Judge Neave clearly defined the two, being the arrogance of departing the scene when all signs of danger had been extinguished and only wishing to return on his own terms, neither of which has the element of danger attached despite that appearing to be the strongest plea of defence. Kim went down and stayed down for at least a good few months, his screams filled the air and one can assume ‘unnoticed’ or of no concern to the departing Hallwright.
Had counsel and indeed the Judge given Hallwright a good shellacking (maybe they did, we don’t know,) then gone on to the mitigation the public perception of a rich prick, being looked after, might have been quickly shelved, as it is the 250hours community work and sizeable reparation take on a wet bus ticket look.
Vote:September 3rd, 2012 at 1:22 am
Road rage, and in this case parking rage.
Rage comes from escalation of action.
In this case the banker apparently steals the parking place, but probably didn’t see the other guy,or did he,
the other guy gets out for altercation , beats up car,and in the end gets run over. The thing is is someone attacking your property is the same as attacking you. This is the Tom Wolfe ‘Bonfire of the Vanities’ scenario. This angry man got run over and because the judge and the media are idiots, we take cudgels against the banker. Well sorry dudes if you attack my car or property I will take the American way.
Now over here in Thailand yesterday a Thailand politicians son had an altercation road rage, and these guys have weapons and shoot, so the politician shoots and the guy shoots back, and the guy kills the politician son, and now he is in jail for a ” premeditated murder” You can actually kill here and buy your way out, with payment to Police.
Vote:·
September 3rd, 2012 at 1:43 am
didn’t think your followers were such redneck Nats farrar
Vote:September 3rd, 2012 at 8:59 am
http://www.facebook.com/StandDownJudgeNeave
Stand down this Judge. Again we see another judge not in touch with reality!!!
Vote:September 3rd, 2012 at 10:52 am
Judge Neave has made the great mistake of criticising the media which, as well all know, is above criticism and must never ever be called to account. The with hunt is on. If the sentencing is the load of poo everyone seems to be suggesting then the SG will appeal. I seem to recall that has already been indicated as “unlikely”.
But clearly reading a news paper article or two and quote from a pissed off victim is a far better way of judging a sentence than something daft like hearing the evidence.
The only reason we know anything about this case is because some reporter did a google search and thought Hallwright was worth making print out of.
Reading the media coverage one could be forgiven for thinking that Judge Neave has done two sentencings in his entire career.
Vote:September 3rd, 2012 at 2:19 pm
The reason for the judges comments was because he was protecting an investment banker. They are above the law and cannot be convicted for any financial damage they cause.
No surprise an investment banker can run over a man and basically be told to have a nice day.
Vote:December 20th, 2012 at 12:13 pm
So now we hear this guy earns $250k PLUS another $200k in bonuses a year. No wonder he thinks he’s better than everyone and above the law!
He should have been fined half a million bucks, to be given to his victim immediately.
Having a lot of money is bad for people, we see it again and again…
Vote:December 20th, 2012 at 12:22 pm
How much money do you think Raurangi Marino (Turangi child rapist / piece of shit) was on, Muffintop?
making stupid generalisations is bad for people, we see it again and again…
Vote: