The judge said that given there had been elements of racing behaviour – where they’d been swapping places and driving in convoy through Mount Maunganui – it must have been clear to the defendant that his driving would influence his friend.
“They were in a competition of speed and had been since the [Baypark] roundabout.”
In those circumstances, the defendant’s driving was dangerous and had influenced the driver who crashed, despite the final speed of the crashed car being in a “different league”.
The court heard earlier this week the other car was more powerful than the defendant’s and could reach much higher speeds. Based on a forensic engineer’s estimates, it likely reached nearly 170km/h when the driver lost control and crashed.
The defendant was likely travelling around 135km/h, and reached the crash site 50-100m behind his friend. He drove past, pulled over, and he and his passenger got out to check on their injured friends.
They’d been driving on SH29A, a 100km/h zone.
As they left the Baypark roundabout, they’d both taken off. The defendant had been following and the judge’s decision said the “heavy acceleration ... at or close to the maximum of which his car was capable, is clearly suggestive of an attempt to catch up with [his friend]”.
There had been overtaking and undertaking, of each other and of two other vehicles.
There was evidence that after undertaking the defendant, and then overtaking a Toyota Hilux, at a speed that “buffeted” the ute, the teen lost control and crashed, hitting a treeline and being launched back into the road.
Two passengers had been thrown from the car, including a teenage boy who died at the scene.
‘Two kids lying in the middle of the road’
The court heard a recording of a 111 call made by a road user who saw the two teens speed to overtake her before she came around a bend and saw the crash.
“They were racing down the road and the car was totalled, there are two kids lying in the middle of the road,” she told the operator.
One of the teens had been non-responsive and, after receiving CPR by a first responder, died at the scene.
The judge said the defendant’s driving had been dangerous to himself, his passengers, the other teen-driven car and other road users.
“It was sufficiently proximate to have been a factor in the accident which resulted in the death and injuries. Peer influence was at work and the driving of each was affected by the driving of the other.”
Judge Harding found the Crown proved charges of dangerous driving causing death, and dangerous driving causing injury, beyond reasonable doubt.
In the Youth Court a young person is not found guilty or not guilty, rather the charges are proved or not proved.
More specific details about both drivers and where and when the crash happened cannot be published because statutory suppressions apply to media coverage of the Youth Court.
What the judge had to consider
In a judge-alone trial it is up to the judge to decide the facts, based on the evidence, and then determine if the Crown has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The Crown had to prove there was dangerous driving, and also that it contributed in a material way to the death and injury that resulted from the crash.
At the conclusion of the evidence, both lawyers addressed the judge.
Prosecutor Sunny Teki-Clark said the Crown didn’t have to prove dangerous driving was the sole cause but that it was a contributing cause.
“The circumstances of [the defendant’s] driving have to be viewed in its entirety,” he said.
“The evidence suggests that [the two drivers] were engaged in a contest of speed, well above a level that was safe.”
He said there were characteristics of street racing and a contest of speed.
Both vehicles had passed another car shortly before the crash.
“To that extent, [the defendant] has contributed to the speed and manner of [the crashed car’s] driving.”
Defence lawyer Rachael Adams said it hadn’t been established beyond reasonable doubt that the driving was dangerous.
She said it was accepted there was clear evidence of excessive speed, and acceleration of the defendant at two points, but both had been where the speed limit increased, including on the open road.
More was needed to establish “danger”, she said.
“In my submission, no conclusions can be drawn as to the reasons for those periods of acceleration or even the excessive speed.”
All of the causative factors related to the other driver – speed, alcohol, and an under-inflated space-saver tyre.
“There was a high degree of negligence on his part, and the defence position is that it’s his fault, and his fault alone.”
She said there was no clear evidence of racing or competitive driving.
“This is not a situation as we often see, sir, of young people egging each other on with yelling, hand signals, cameras on their phone; there’s no evidence of any discussion or any interaction.”
While both experts had conceded peer influence could be a “possible factor”, it hadn’t reached the level of causation beyond reasonable doubt, Adams said.
The driver of the crashed car had made “appalling” and “tragic” decisions of his own.
With the judge having found the charges against the young person proved, the matter has now been referred to a family group conference.
Hannah Bartlett is a Tauranga-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She previously covered court and local government for the Nelson Mail, and before that was a radio reporter at Newstalk ZB.
