Judge-alone trial — reckless driving causing death — failing to stop and ascertain injury — Lewis v Police (1980) 1 CRNZ 659 — Hurst v Police (1990) 5 CRNZ 506 — R v Reid DC Christchurch CRI-2004-009-003642, 4 March 2005 — Uren v Police (1993) 10 CRNZ 141 — Brunt v R [2023] NZHC 451 — Chand v Police [2005] DCR 762. The defendant was on trial for charges of reckless driving causing death, and failing to stop and ascertain injury. The defendant had entered the victim's home through an open side door and taken an iPad, some sunglasses and a set of car keys. He had then walked out to the front of the house and taken the car parked in the driveway. The next day, while driving a different car, the victim had spotted the defendant driving the stolen car and started to follow him. A high speed chase ensued, which ended with both of the vehicles crashing into a culvert. The defendant managed to escape the stolen car and fled the scene without looking for the victim. The victim was found deceased in his submerged car the next morning. The Court heard evidence of two expert crash analyst witnesses and had concluded that the crash was caused by the defendant slowing down significantly, and the victim accidentally colliding with the back of his vehicle, sending both vehicles into the water. An expert pathologist also gave evidence confirming the cause of the victim's death was immersion in water and/or injuries sustained in the crash. On the reckless driving causing death charge, the Court found that the defendant's deliberate actions in continuing to drive at high speeds with the knowledge that the victim was pursuing him meant that all of his driving was risky, and that there were a myriad of risks that the defendant should have foreseen but chose to ignore in order to get away. The Court was satisfied that the defendant's risky driving was the cause of the victim's death, and the defendant was found guilty on that charge. On the failing to stop and ascertain injury charge, the defence submitted that the defendant had a reasonable excuse for not ascertaining injury or offering assistance, in that he was injured and in shock after the crash. The Court rejected this argument, finding that none of the defendant's injuries rendered him incapable of either assisting the victim himself or seeking out assistance from a member of the public. He also could have, but did not, notify authorities anonymously that the victim was in danger. The Court found him guilty on that charge. Judgment Date: 17 May 2024.