Turning left at the intersection from Stanley Road into Awapuni Road, Rogers failed to adequately give way to a vehicle that passed from her right. She rear-ended it, causing it to veer left into Ohuka’s car.
Rogers subsequently pleaded guilty to careless use of a vehicle causing death — a charge that carries a maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a fine of up to $4500.
Sentenced yesterday in Gisborne District Court, she received 100 hours of community work and six months of supervision. Judge Turitea Bolstad also imposed a mandatory six-month driver disqualification.
At the outset of the hearing, Judge Bolstad said these types of cases were always “very difficult”.
She stressed to Ohuka’s family, who were present, that the court was limited in the sentence it could impose for this charge. It was not to undermine or reflect what their beloved sister and aunt’s life was worth.
The court was required to focus on the level of carelessness involved in the offence — not the consequences of it. The judge hoped the sentencing constraint had been explained to the family ahead of the hearing.
Police and Rogers’ counsel Nicola Wright agreed the sentence starting point should be 80 to 100 hours of community work. The judge accepted the breaches involved were of the lower order.
She took into account Rogers’ guilty plea, remorse, young age and lack of previous convictions.
The judge noted Rogers would have to live with what she’d done for the rest of her life. She had not driven since the incident.
And she knew what loss was: her own mother died suddenly when Rogers was 14.
Rogers had a bright future and needed to ensure she used it — “don’t let Ohuka’s death be in vain”, Judge Bolstad said.
The family were silent throughout the hearing. McPhail left abruptly when the sentence was announced.
Outside the court, she told the Gisborne Herald the sentence was “unjust” and the justice system was “flawed”.
The family had not been told by police ahead of the hearing what to expect, but they knew the sentence would be a low one due to the maximum possible for the charge, McPhail said. However, she didn’t expect it to be as low as it was.
“I understand that she [Rogers] has to live with this for the rest of her life, but so do we. The judge says this is no reflection of what her [Ohuka’s] life’s worth, but it really does feel that way, and it’s hard not to feel that way and hard not to be upset because 100 hours [of] community work and six months’ disqualification is nothing.”
Had Rogers hit a parked vehicle — and not caused the death of anyone — she (probably) would have got the same sentence as the one imposed for this.
“I get that she’s young and she’s remorseful and she’s a mother, but that doesn’t excuse the carelessness. It just doesn’t.”
“Social media’s a powerful thing, and I see her living her life ...”
It didn’t seem like Rogers was that remorseful, McPhail said.
“It’s just not fair.
“You can’t just go around and not care, and breach licences and breach the road rules, and kill someone and get away with it, and sit there and say, ‘Well, I didn’t directly hit her so it’s not really my fault’.”
The family declined to meet with Rogers for restorative justice, but McPhail said they were not averse to meeting with her at a later time.
“We just didn’t want to meet with her before the court case because we know that something like that looks kindly on her case, and imagine if we did – she would’ve have got even less.
“We wanted to see if she was remorseful enough and genuine enough to approach us outside of what her solicitor suggested,” McPhail said.
When she and her cousins tried to approach the police for information, they were told that the case was between the police and Rogers. It wasn’t until the plea hearing in January this year that they were shown a copy of the charge Rogers faced (not by police) and were able to see the maximum penalties.
They were not given a summary of facts, so only first heard it during yesterday’s sentencing. Before that, they had only been able to piece together what actually happened to Ohuka through newspaper reports and their own visits to the scene.
In victim impact statements read aloud to the court, family members described Ohuka as someone who was dedicated to serving people. She never married — her love was Jesus, they said. She didn’t have children of her own, but was a much-loved second mother to all her siblings’ children.
She was the family’s rock and problem-solver. It had been stressful preparing for her funeral without her.
Ohuka’s brother was the tow truck driver sent to the scene to remove the three extensively damaged vehicles. He had no idea his sister was involved until he got there, but managed to move the vehicles before racing to the hospital.
The family was shocked at seeing their strong and resilient aunt and sister in such a fragile state. She was so fragile they weren’t allowed to wipe the blood off her face. They sensed it was unlikely she would recover.
McPhail said the word ‘accident’ had been used too often to describe what happened. It implied that no one was to blame, but vehicle collisions were not accidents. This was “a careless and brazen disregard for the law, that had led to my poor aunty’s death”, McPhail said. She wanted the court to take that into account.
Police prosecution staff spoke with the family at court after yesterday afternoon’s hearing.
The police media department was asked to comment on this story, but it needed more time to contact the officers involved.
