Banker's sentence shocks his victim

[Maurice Bevin 0]

I read the article in the NZ Herald and I think this judge is totally out of order and this guy should have got a prison sentence.

An investment banker has been sentenced to 250 hours' community work for breaking the legs of a man he ran over - a sentence his victim cannot believe.

"Why no jail? I don't understand. I don't understand," Sung Jin Kim said when he learned of the sentence given to Forsyth Barr senior market analyst Guy Hallwright yesterday.

As well as the community work and an 18-month ban from driving, Hallwright was also ordered to pay Mr Kim $20,000 reparation.

"$20,000, that's it?" his victim said yesterday.

Mr Kim still hobbles, two years after he was run over by Hallwright on Mt Eden Rd.

His lower legs are swollen, bruised and scarred and he winced as he slowly lowered himself to sit on the steps of the South Auckland warehouse he calls home.

He said the surgery on his legs - he would probably need six operations in total - would cost about $150,000.

Hallwright was found guilty by a jury in June of causing grievous bodily harm with reckless disregard over the incident in September 2010 in which he hit Mr Kim with his Saab.

He drove off, but later called police about the crash.

Hallwright had been taking his daughter to an appointment when he and Mr Kim got into an argument in their cars. Mr Kim got out of his vehicle and banged on Hallwright's bonnet before he was hit.

In Auckland District Court yesterday, Judge Raoul Neave criticised the media for referring to the offence as a hit-and-run, saying Hallwright was driving "away" from the situation, which had been escalated in seriousness by Mr Kim banging on the bonnet.

"What I know of your character ... I consider it highly unlikely you would have driven at him," Judge Neave told Hallwright.

He said describing the incident as a hit-and-run was "irresponsible and inappropriate".

"[Mr Kim] has gone under the wheels of your car, you've driven over him before carrying on with your manoeuvre [of pulling back on to the road]," Judge Neave said.

He told Hallwright he was a contributor to society with a "spotless reputation" and "impeccable character" but he did not want it to be thought that he was overlooking the "very serious" effects on Mr Kim.

"[it caused] very significant and severe injuries to Mr Kim ... though it goes without saying you never sought out to cause those injuries."

Judge Neave said the reparation represented Hallwright's remorse and was not a loophole of the legal system that allowed rich people to buy their way out of more serious sentences.

Hallwright's employer, Forsyth Barr, felt he had brought the company into disrepute as a result of media coverage of the trial, and the judge criticised the media's "prurient" interest in the case as "vulgar in the extreme".

The media had "seized upon and reported for no reason other than a desire to take an unhealthy degree of glee" from someone of Hallwright's esteem being on trial in a criminal court. "The Germans have a word for it: schadenfreude."

Associate Professor Bill Hodge of the University of Auckland law faculty said he had no sympathy for Hallwright over the publicity surrounding the case.

"I don't think the judge is on target when he criticises the media for featuring the person's position in society or profession ... I suspect someone who wasn't a merchant banker wouldn't have quite got the same consideration."

Prosecutor Ross Burns said it was unlikely the Crown would appeal against the sentence.

Mr Kim said he would consider appealing against the sentence but was unsure how to go about it.

[Lloyd Vivian 742]

This decision was a shocker! Smacked of mates looking after each other to me....

[Rooboy 1]

My one question would be. "Did this man contact his Lawyer, prior to contacting the Police". I'll bet he did.

[Centrofold 147]

We don't know all the details about the accident to make a judgement if the judges decision was just or not. How would the victim benefit from the banker being imprisoned?

I would be thankful I was alive to be peeved. Some people are not so lucky.

[Lloyd Vivian 742]

Jane - there's been wrong done on both sides: Mr 'Rich Banker' was clearly upset by Mr Korean's driving and subsequently gave him the one-fingered salute. Mr Korean in turn was very upset by Mr Rich Banker's 'salute' and jumped out of his car and started banging on it. Then while Mr Korean was standing in front of Mr RB's car, Mr RB decoded to simply accelerate away over top of Mr Korean and some time down the road - prompted it seems by the screams of his now hysterical teen-age daughter - he stopped and rang the police to say 'there'd been an accident.'

In my opinion, he can consider himself very lucky to have got off as lightly as he did.

[Centrofold 147]

Sure, the driver is lucky Lloyd. The judge could have been very PC and ruled accordingly.

If the judge had been more heavy on the driver it would be endorsing the thought that people should be able to step out in front of a car and it is the drivers responsibility to make sure they don't injure the person. Taking away any responsibility for Mr Korean.

Mr Korean has learnt a lesson too. Don't step out in front of a motor vehicle. In particular if he knows the driver is angry with him. He could have ended up dead. Maybe he will think twice about his actions too.

What is the old phrase "two wrongs don't make a right?"

[Barmer 0]

Sure, the driver is lucky Lloyd. The judge could have been very PC and ruled accordingly.

If the judge had been more heavy on the driver it would be endorsing the thought that people should be able to step out in front of a car and it is the drivers responsibility to make sure they don't injure the person. Taking away any responsibility for Mr Korean.

With a couple of broken legs 'Stepping out' won't be on Mr Korean's agenda for a while

[Ashoka 1,179]

At first glance, there are three aspects of this matter that, I believe, bear further examination.

1. It is a criminal offence to use a motor vehicle as a weapon.

2. The judge appears to make mistakes of fact when detailing what happened.

3. The judge's comments on the offender's character are contradicted by the offender's behaviour while having his teenage daughter with him.

Of these matters, the judge's mistakes of fact in relation to what happened should be grounds for an immediate appeal by the Crown Prosecutor.

All the best.

Ashoka

[Centrofold 147]

Intent to use a motor vehicle as a weapon is a crime. A bit like a loaded gun. If someone walks out in front of a car and gets run over. What does the law say about the pedestrian?

Stupid?

[Centrofold 147]

I experienced this only yesterday. Someone walked out right in front of my car. Fortunately the road was wide enough to take evasive action but what if there hadn't been. Would I have been charged with a crime?

[Ashoka 1,179]

You have not understood what I have written.

You appear to have no idea of context.

The circumstances you are detailing have no relevance to the matter at hand.

Ashoka

[Centrofold 147]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At first glance, there are three aspects of this matter that, I believe, bear further examination.

1. It is a criminal offence to use a motor vehicle as a weapon.

2. The judge appears to make mistakes of fact when detailing what happened.

3. The judge's comments on the offender's character are contradicted by the offender's behaviour while having his teenage daughter with him.

Of these matters, the judge's mistakes of fact in relation to what happened should be grounds for an immediate appeal by the Crown Prosecutor.

All the best.

Ashoka

So you know what was going through the mind of the driver, Ashoka. Very clever.

Do you believe the young man who was injured did not contribute to his own injuries through his own actions?

Do you know what the actual facts are? Were you there? Are you a witness to the incident?

[Centrofold 147]

If the young man appeals. Who is going to pay for the appeal and how much is the appeal going to cost?

I suppose some would think the banker should pay for it.

What gets me about this is "self responsibilty for what happens to us". This young man could have avoided the situation and didn't. That is my point.

[Ashoka 1,179]

I am commenting on this matter based on the information available through the media.

The most important factor, to me at first glance, is the judge's blatant attempts to mitigate the seriousness of what has happened and the most serious example of this is the judge's misstatement of the facts.

The judge is bringing the law into disrepute, in my opinion.

I regret addressing my correspondence to you. You are incapable of rational discussion and I should have realised this through my exposure to your previous ramblings.

Ashoka

[Sighted 24]

The judge is bringing the law into disrepute, in my opinion.

I regret addressing my correspondence to you. You are incapable of rational discussion and I should have realised this through my exposure to your previous ramblings.

Ashoka

You are 100% right on both counts.

[Centrofold 147]

I am commenting on this matter based on the information available through the media.

The most important factor, to me at first glance, is the judge's blatant attempts to mitigate the seriousness of what has happened and the most serious example of this is the judge's misstatement of the facts.

The judge is bringing the law into disrepute, in my opinion.

I regret addressing my correspondence to you. You are incapable of rational discussion and I should have realised this through my exposure to your previous ramblings.

Ashoka

I thought my questions were reasonable Ashoka but if you wish to base your thinking on what you read in the media, be my guest.

I wonder if anyone in the media is going to consider this injured person contributed to his own injuries by his actions. That's all?

There are always two sides to every issue. You have expressed yours, I have expressed mine.

That's all. Thank you.

[Varro 244]

I thought my questions were reasonable Ashoka but if you wish to base your thinking on what you read in the media, be my guest.

I wonder if anyone in the media is going to consider this injured person contributed to his own injuries by his actions. That's all?

There are always two sides to every issue. You have expressed yours, I have expressed mine.

That's all. Thank you.

Jane so what you are saying is if the guy didnt go in front of the car it woudnt have happened, thats all well and fine but at the end of the day regardless of what Mr Korean did, the banker should not have run him over simple as that. he has used his car in the form of a weapon and should have been charged accordingly. Ashoka is completely right and the crown should be appealing, the judge is trying to lessen the actual degree of whats happened here because of the bankers position in society.

[kopia 1]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At first glance, there are three aspects of this matter that, I believe, bear further examination.

1. It is a criminal offence to use a motor vehicle as a weapon.

2. The judge appears to make mistakes of fact when detailing what happened.

3. The judge's comments on the offender's character are contradicted by the offender's behaviour while having his teenage daughter with him.

Of these matters, the judge's mistakes of fact in relation to what happened should be grounds for an immediate appeal by the Crown Prosecutor.

All the best.

Ashoka

So you know what was going through the mind of the driver, Ashoka. Very clever.

Do you believe the young man who was injured did not contribute to his own injuries through his own actions?

Do you know what the actual facts are? Were you there? Are you a witness to the incident?

So using your logic, I take it your view would be that a woman contributes to a case of rape because she is a woman?

[closet 0]

Jane so what you are saying is if the guy didnt go in front of the car it woudnt have happened, thats all well and fine but at the end of the day regardless of what Mr Korean did, the banker should not have run him over simple as that. he has used his car in the form of a weapon and should have been charged accordingly. Ashoka is completely right and the crown should be appealing, the judge is trying to lessen the actual degree of whats happened here because of the bankers position in society.

Spot on...the guy should be in jail.

[Lloyd Vivian 742]

Or at least have a nought added to his fine, in order to cover the costs of Mr Korean's operations....as it is WE are going to pay for it through ACC! The whole episode is a disgrace to the Legal system in this country.

[DC7 1]

What if someone gets out of a car and points a gun at you? Is it OK to run them over in that case? Where do you draw the line for threatening behaviour? I'm sick of hearing about this case. They both sound as big a dickhead as eachother.

[kilcoyne 196]

I experienced this only yesterday. Someone walked out right in front of my car. Fortunately the road was wide enough to take evasive action but what if there hadn't been. Would I have been charged with a crime?

Simple answer is Yes