The King v Eastwick [2024] NZHC 2086 per Dunningham J
Mental health as a factor – reckless driving – youth incarceration – dangerous driving – bullying and harassment – purposes and principles of sentencing – R v Gebhardt [2022] NZHC 1899 – excessive speed – manslaughter with a motor vehicle – autism spectrum disorder – unlicensed driver – rehabilitation and integration
On 7 August 2023, Ryan Eastwick, then 14 years old, intentionally crashed a car at high speed, killing Sandra Loveday. He was charged with manslaughter and sentenced in the High Court at Christchurch on 30 July 2024.
The defendant was involved in a Snapchat group where he had been repeatedly told by a 13-year-old associate to kill himself. On the night of the crash, after receiving another such message, Eastwick stole his mother’s car and drove at excessive speeds, ranging from 150 to 190 km/h, while sending farewell messages to the group and his mother.
At approximately 11.10 pm, he deliberately veered into oncoming traffic on West Coast Road, colliding head-on with Loveday’s vehicle, killing her. Eastwick survived the crash but was hospitalised in a critical condition.
The sentencing judge, Dunningham J, faced the difficult task of balancing various sentencing purposes and principles.
On one hand, the judge needed to hold Eastwick accountable for the severe harm caused, acknowledge the loss experienced by Loveday’s family and friends, and denounce and deter such conduct. On the other hand, the judge had to consider Eastwick’s youth, mental health issues and the need for his rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
The Crown argued for a starting point of eight years and six months’ imprisonment, citing the deliberate and reckless nature of Eastwick’s actions, the excessive speed and the absence of any external factors (such as impairment by alcohol or drugs) contributing to the crash. The Crown referenced other similar cases of manslaughter involving motor vehicles to justify the proposed sentence.
Eastwick’s lawyer acknowledged the seriousness of the case but argued that the judge should consider Eastwick’s age, mental health issues and the fact that he was responding to severe bullying and an undiagnosed autism spectrum disorder.
The lawyer referenced the case of Gebhardt v R as being comparable, where the Court of Appeal set a starting point of six years and six months for a manslaughter conviction involving culpable driving.
The judge agreed that Eastwick’s case was more serious than Gebhardt due to the deliberate nature of the crash and other aggravating factors, such as the prolonged period of reckless driving and the fact that Eastwick was unlicensed and had taken the vehicle without permission.
However, the judge also recognised the mitigating factors, including Eastwick’s guilty plea, his youth and his mental health issues.
After considering all factors, the judge decided on a starting point of seven-and-a-half years’ imprisonment, higher than in Gebhardt because the crash was deliberate. The judge applied a 25% discount for Eastwick’s guilty plea and further discounts were considered for his youth and mental health issues.
Eastwick was sentenced on the charge of manslaughter to two years, eight months’ imprisonment and disqualified from driving for a period of two years, commencing on his release from custody.
0 Comments