Hallwright victim to seek harsher penalty
A Korean man seriously injured after being run over by Guy Hallwright wants to appeal the sentence given to the senior Forsyth Barr analyst.
Hallwright was last week sentenced to 250 hours community work, had his driver's license taken away for 18 months and must pay $20,000 reparations to Mr Sung Jin Kim.
He was found guilty by jury of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm to Mr Kim by running over his foot after a brief but heated exchange in Mt Eden in September 2010.
Mr Kim's lawyer, Dr Michael Kidd, says Mr Kim came to see him late yesterday saying he wants to appeal the sentence.
"Mr Kim thinks the defendant should have received a custodial or semi-custodial term such as home detention for such a deliberate assault."
Dr Kidd does not believe Mr Kim wants more reparations.
He says they need to ask the Crown whether it intends to appeal the sentence. It had indicated earlier it would not.
"If it's not, we will need to know whether or not they have any objections to an appeal.
"The attorney-general can actually stop people appealing but I think in this case it would be unlikely."
Dr Kidd says because Mr Kim is directly linked to the case, he has the right to ask for the sentence to be reconsidered.
While causing grievous bodily harm with reckless disregard carries a maximum term of seven years in prison, Judge Raoul Neave said this would be inappropriate considering Hallwright's "impeccable character".
Meanwhile, it is still unclear whether Hallwright has a future at Forsyth Barr.
Managing director Neil Paviour-Smith last week said the firm was "unhappy" with the situation, but would not confirm whether it would fire Hallwright.
Back to home
Back to top
Print
Latest
NBR SERVICES
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Sign up for NBR subscriber content or email alerts
Comments and questions11
Good on Dr Kidd and Mr Kim.
I happen to think that Mr Hallwright did get caught up in an unfortunate situation which is not your typical 'hit and run'. Nevertheless, the judge is completely and totally out of line in praising and upholding Mr Hallwright's character.
A judicial review will put our justice system on notice that there must not be two rules in society based upon race, class and profession.
Have money, buy justice.
It's the golden rule. Those with the gold, rule.
Maybe a lesson to be learnt by both parties.
Dont jump out of your car and talk to a person that may have made a motoring indiscretion.
Then , on the other hand, the other person, dont jump out of their car and bang on somebodys bonnet.
Both parties at fault
Except one party ran the other one over. Not quite equal.
The judge is right - it wasn't a "Hit and Run" as the media said. Hallwright did what he is legally allowed to do - move off and call the police. The victim was partly at fault in that he jumped on the car. The judge also stated the defendant's character which most judges do - but in this case, the media skewed the comments. Typical Herald!!
Sorry but you don't drive off after you run someone over. You stop and help. What character. Any decent human being with a character stops to help once they injure someone.
What I've learned from the Hon. Justice Neave: is that unless you're occupying the lofty heights of the Bench, you're deemed to be a "layperson".
For, it is he -- in all his inestimable judicial omniscience, -- who can discern the difference from who is a "pillar of society" and what constitutes a "Hit-and run".
And, should you not be empathetic -- even sympathetic -- to Guy Hallwright's unspeakable conduct , you are deemed to be engaged in schadenfreude.
If you want a lesson in reductive-and-simplistic rulings, look no further than the 'pearls off wisdom' that drip off from Justice Neave.
You guys are WAY over the top. Put yourself in Mr Hallright's position - you've got your young daughter in the car and you've got a scarey angry person shouting and bashing on your bonnet. I'd have hit the gas and assumed he'd jump out of the way too.
No, it's not right to use your car as a weapon. (It's not really right to use anything as a weapon, I guess.) But feeling threatened it would be easy not to realise the possible consequences. Hallright certainly didn't mean to break Kim's feet, but then, Kim shouldn't have been threatening him.
I think this is justice. It has nothing to do with race or money, all to do with character and common sense.
Both parties should take resonsibility
This is institutional racism at its worst. I bet if there was an asian driver running a white guy over, he would get 10 years in jail.