Sentencing — causing death whilst driving under influence of methamphetamine — neglecting a child — failure to properly secure or provide for the children’s welfare in the vehicle — R v Cooksley [2003] 3 All ER 40 — Gacitua v R [2013] NZCA 234 — R v Lyon [2018] NZHC 1434 — Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135. The defendant appeared for sentencing having pleaded guilty to a charge of causing death whilst in charge of a motor vehicle with blood containing methamphetamine, two charges of causing bodily injury whilst in charge of a motor vehicle with blood containing methamphetamine, and two charges of neglecting a child. The defendant was driving with her partner and with children in the car. The children were not properly secured, nor were items in the well side of the vehicle. The defendant had consumed alcohol and methamphetamine, and was spotted driving aggressively. Ultimately, the defendant caused an accident which killed an oncoming driver. The Judge had provided a sentencing indication which had a starting point for the lead offence of five years' imprisonment. The Judge reached this starting point by considering the defendant's culpability; specifically, the consumption of methamphetamine, the combined consumption of alcohol, persistent bad and aggressive driving, the injuries sustained, the neglect of the children and the impact of the death on the deceased's family. The Judge then applied an uplift of three months for previous methamphetamine related offending and did not provide any discount for remorse. A discount of six months was given for the defendant's family situation, willingness to do something about her rehabilitation and willingness to undertake restorative justice. A further 25 per cent discount was granted for pleading guilty. The final sentence was three years, six months for the lead offence of causing death, and 12 months' imprisonment for the remaining charges, all served concurrently. The Judge also imposed a five year disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence. The media applied to have the defendant's image taken, which the defence opposed on the basis of extreme hardship to the defendant and her children. However, the Judge held that it was in the public interest for the image to be published, and that while it was a hardship, it was not extreme hardship as the defendant has been in prison since pleading guilty and the children are no longer in her care. Judgment Date: 17 October 2018.