Queen v Raumea [2011] CKHC 48; CR143.2010 (3 June 2011)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE COOK ISLANDS
HELD AT RAROTONGA
(CRIMINAL DIVISION)
CR 143/2010

QUEEN

V

KOROA RAUMEA

Counsel: Ms Henry for Crown
Mr George for Offender

Date: 3 June 2011

SENTENCING NOTES OF HON HUGH WILLIAMS J

[1] Mr Raumea, you were orily char charged with three Counts, one of driving with excess breath alcohol under s.28A and two of driving while under the influence of drink and causing bodilury to two young women, those charges being brought under sder s.25. The jury convicted you only on the charge of driving with excess breath alcohol and acquitted you on the two, what can be colloquially called drunken driving causing injury, charges.

[2] On the charge on which you were convicted the maximum penalty appears to be up to 12 months imprisonment or a fine of up to $1,000 or both, plus disqualification for "a minimum period of 12 months". As discussed with counsel, the legislation does not appear to impose a maximum disqualification as even now s.28A is not expressly mentioned in s.31.

[3] The facts are that you had been at work for a lengthy period during that day and had some drinks whilst you caught up on some study in which you were then engaged. You then decided to drive home. You thought you were not over the limit, but then every drunken driver thinks that. You came to a T-intersection where it was your obligation to give way to other road users, particularly those coming across the intersection from your right as these two young women were on their motorcycle. You too were on a motorcycle. You failed to comply with your obligations under the right hand rule as a road user and drove into the motorcycle being driven by the two women.

[4] There was a deal made in evidence during the trial of the suggestion you fully complied with your obligations or that you were a victim of the overgrown hedge to your right. It is of course not known whether that evidence formed part of the jury's deliberations, but there was at least one witness who lived nearby who said the hedge was trimmed monthly.

[5] The evidence was clear that the two young women were riding lawfully and at a speed below the speed limit, and that they suffered a certain amount of injury as a result of you driving into them. As it turned out, the pillion passenger was eight months pregnant and was kept in hospital overnight, but only for observation due to her advanced state of pregnancy.

[6] Putting it neutrally, you then left the scene. The police view is that you fled the scene of the accident. Mr George belaboured tggestionstion that, because you had apparently suffered a bang to the head in the accident, you were confused or concussed and doff in the direction opposite to that towards your home as an irrational act, taking a plat plate of food the young women had with you on that occasion. Whatever the correct position there, you certainly left the scene but you were chased by an off duty constable in her own car who finally succeeded in stopping you some distance away. On duty police officers then apprehended you, took you to the police station, and administered a breath test which showed that your breath alcohol concentration was 470 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath against a legal limit of 400. That is to say that you were nearly 20% over the limit.

[7] Mr George again repeatedle thee the submission to the jury, and made it again today, that the police should have attended to your injuries before breathalysing you. The evidence as to the extent of your injuries was almost all from you, and the police evidence was that at the police station you were offered the chance to obtain medical treatment and declined it.

[8] The Crown's submissions suggest that an aggravating feature was that you fled the scene of the accident, but that you are entitled to have taken into account the fact that this was a first offence. What they propose is that you be fined and sentenced to community work.

[9] Mr George this morning again made the point about what he suggests was the gravity of your injuries and says there was nothing about this offence which would lead the Court to impose anything other than a fine of about $300 andonths disqualification, tha, that apparently being the scale adopted by the local Justices.

[10] Mr Registrar has given copy ofpy of the scale by which the local Justices apparently work, however that is a matter for them. If applied rigorously, i raise the questions of possible predetermination.

[11] As said earlier, the sentesentence must promote a sense of responsibility in you for the harm done, denounce your conduct and try to deter others.

[12] This was in my view a bad piece of driving by a man who was clearly over the limit. You failed to comply with your obligations at the T-intersection.

[13] It is somewhat difficult to reconcile the jury's acquittals on the two bodily injury charges and their convicting you on the excess breath alcohol count if the jury followed the directions given to them in summing-up. It could be the case that the jury regarded the injuries suffered by the two young women as being insufficiently serious to amount to "bodily injury" and acquitted you on that ground, but we can only guess at that. No other logical answer seems to present itself if the jury complied with the directions they were given.

[14] In my view, however, as said this was a bad piece of driving by a man well over the limit. In my view the case can be appropriately met by a fine rather larger than the scale the Justices appear to adopt for such offending. You will be fined $750. Against the minimum disqualification of 12 months. In my view you were sufficiently over the limit to warrant a longer disqualification, and you will be disqualified for 18 months. You are also directed to serve six months community service. The disqualification will start today.

[15] If Mr Raumea is to locate his lics licence, it is to be handed to the police forthwith.

Hon Hugh Williams J

Edal Note: Derived from the Court’s electronic onic records and believed to be correct and final.