John Munro: Criminal defence lawyer discusses sentencing of 20-year-old that killed a friend in a car crash

Sentences could only get tougher for drivers who kill under the influence, as a 20-year-old's been sent to prison. 

Alexander Lucas Kerr has been sentenced to 27 months in prison, after a crash killed one of his friends and left the other in a wheelchair. 

He was found with cannabis in his system when he crashed his car in a semi-rural part of Havelock North in January. 

Criminal defence lawyer John Munro says Kerr doesn't qualify for home detention, despite heavy discounts to his sentence. 

He says if the starting point remains the same in a year, discounts could be capped at 40-percent. 

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
We might have found a tough judge in what some
are calling a sort of a landmark case in Napier.
We've got a twenty year old man with no previous
convictions has been sentenced to twenty seven months jail after
crashing while under the influence of cannabis. The crash killed
one friend and left another wheelchair bound, the judge stressing
the need for serious consequences for impaired driving. Now, John
Unrose a criminal defense lawyer and is with us. John
morning to you.

Speaker 2 (00:20):
Good morning, way.

Speaker 1 (00:21):
Is this unusual?

Speaker 2 (00:25):
I don't think it really, because the judge took a
starting point in the sentence of four and a half
years I think for memory, which is within the range
for that sort of offense for two basically one person
deed and one seriously nimed. So I don't think it's
that unusual.

Speaker 1 (00:41):
No, that's what we're having a debate off here as
to whether this was the thing or not, whether we're
going to see some sort of change. And because you
start up fifty four, he had twenty percent discount for guilty, please,
fifteen percent for you, five percent for allowing his victims
to be heard through the restorative justice process, and ten
percent for the rehabilitative efforts, and by the time you
get to that, you're down to twenty seven, which is
above the twenty four for the two years, which means

(01:02):
you're going to jail, isn't it.

Speaker 2 (01:04):
That's right, Yeah, that's right. It he missed out on
the sort of threshold, which was twenty four months, and
that's probably going to get tougher as well, because if
the starting point remains the same for an offense which
takes place perhaps in a year's time, those discounts, if
you call them, that is going to be capped at
forty percent. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:25):
How someone when when you start at fifty four as
he did, how prescriptive?

Speaker 2 (01:29):
Is that? It's really not that prescriptive because it's dealt
with by past cases, so there'll be precedents around that
sort of guide the judge in that fashion as to
where he should start at.

Speaker 1 (01:45):
The defense. Now you're arguing for home D. Is that
standard as it doesn't matter what's happened, Let's have some
home D.

Speaker 2 (01:53):
Not necessarily, I mean my style usually is if it
gets if it gets close, we'll try for home D.
And other things can get discounts, such as at the
time they were on bail, electronic bail, for example, he
might have slipped under, but not necessarily. No, but I
will ohs, after I've done the reductions of my own head,

(02:15):
I'll try for home detention.

Speaker 1 (02:17):
Okay, appreciate your insight, John John Munroe, who's criminal defense lawyer.

Speaker 2 (02:20):
For more from the mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to
news talks i'd be from six am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio