Hallwright sentence to be appealed

It looks like the sentence of hit and run driver Guy Hallwright is to be appealed by the Solicitor-General after silly comments by the Judge were widely reported. I wonder when Guy Hallwright will give up fighting the arse card from his employer, since his constant appearance in the media is demonstrably causing him to bring the firm into disrepute:

The cosy boys club atmosphere that appeared to exist in this case needs to be closely looked at.

In a rare legal move, the Solicitor-General is considering an appeal against the sentence imposed on investment banker Guy Hallwright who was found guilty of running down a man in a road rage incident.

A spokeswoman for the Solicitor-General said a “thorough review” of the case was being carried out to decide whether there were grounds for an appeal.

The appeal is backed by Auckland Council for Civil Liberties president Barry Wilson, who wrote a letter to Solicitor-General Michael Heron saying the court’s handling of the matter “reinforces the public perception of a two-tier justice system”.

In the Auckland District Court last month, Judge Raoul Neave sentenced Hallwright, a senior market analyst with Forsyth Barr, to 250 hours of community work, banned him from driving for 18 months and ordered him to pay $20,000 reparation to Sung Jin Kim.

Mr Kim suffered two broken legs when Hallwright hit him with his car after an argument on Mt Eden Rd in September 2010.

Hallwright drove off, but returned to the scene later.

While passing sentence, Judge Neave said Hallwright was a contributor to society with a “spotless reputation” and “impeccable character” and it was highly unlikely he would have driven at Mr Kim.

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

Mr Wilson said the comments were bizarre, and the public clearly regarded the sentence as inadequate.

“A major flaw in the judge’s sentencing comments was that he appeared to deliver a glowing tribute to the defendant based on a limited knowledge of his background.

“To the extent that this contradicted the jury’s verdict, it contributed to the public perception of an inadequate sentence.”

  • Phar Lap

    Tit for tat.I would rather see Ewen Macdonalds sentence appealed.If not why not.

  • cows4me

    It may not be a just verdict it’s just the way it is. Throughout human history the elite have always looked after the elite. I’m not saying it’s right, we are not all born equal as much as many would wish. The powerful will always watch the backs of their mates,least the rolls be reversed. The lesson here is that life isn’t fair and never will be. Only public outrage might get a more serve sentence but the public can not challenge every verdict handed out to those we perceive as privileged.

  • Bunswalla

    I know I’ll get pilloried for it, but I don’t have a problem with the sentence Hallwright got. The press continually refer to it as a ‘road-rage incident’ as if all the fault was Hallwright’s – it wasn’t. Kim started it and chose to escalate it.
    The main problem was the Judge’s stupid comments that made it seem like he was best mates with the defendant in some kind of chummy old boys’ club and they were all looking out for each other. If he had (rightly) condemned Hallwright for his actions and warned him he was close to going to jail and to control his temper in the future – then given him the exact same sentence, there wouldn’t be anything like the same uproar as what there is now. Just saying.

    • Gazzaw

      Sorry Buns I don’t agree. Break a bloke’s legs & drive away just because he pissed you off warrants jail time. Hallwright won’t get jail now but home detention and increased reparations of $100k are required. Who by the way gets to refund the taxpayer for Mr Kim’s hospitalisation, extensive surgery & rehab?

      • pukakidon

        The Idiot Kim brought this upon himself by acting lake a complete nutjob and attacking Hallwrights car. However Hallwight had no right to run him over and then drive away like a coward. He should be punished harder and also have to pay the tax payer back the money, it cost to fix the road rage idiot up.

        The victims of this have been us the tax payer.

    • Troy

      Tell ya what… let me run you over, mangled a couple of limbs, perhaps that puts you out of work for a fair while, that ensures you struggle with medical payments and let’s really see if you’d have a problem with the same sentence being given to me… c’mon, think it about mate, you’re off your rocker if you thought that 200+ community hours was appropriate… geesh.

      • Bunswalla

        He didn’t get “200+ community hours” Troy, he got 250 hours of community service, an 18-month driving ban, and had to pay $20,000 reparations, so let’s start by getting your facts right.

        Secondly, if I carried on like a pork chop at the traffic lights, tooted you aggressively when you didn’t turn left as quickly as I wanted you to – even though you couldn’t because of a pedestrian crossing on their green light – then tailgated you all the way down Mt Eden Rd, turned left to follow you and when you pulled over to let me past I CHOSE to stop my car; then after you got out and said something to me (I have no idea what it was, but probably along the lines of “What the fuck are you doing you fucking maniac?”) I then got out of my car, walked around to the front of your car with your daughter in it, banged aggressively on the bonnet and screamed at you, then started to come round towards the driver’s side, then YES I would expect you to do something about it.

        I’ve said a dozen times that the action Hallwright took was completely wrong and he deserves to be punisghed (and has been). What I can’t say is that I wouldn’t have done something similar, and you know what Troy – I reckon you would have done something too.

        You and others are making Kim out to be some blameless innocent victim of a “road-rage” attack and a “hit and run” – both of which are bullshit. He was the instigator and he got fucking owned for his trouble. All he had to do was carry on driving and it would have been just another tiny blip of inconvenience among the thousands of daily irritations in the big city.

        He chose to put himself in harm’s way which, on reflection – and I’m sure Mr Kim regrets his stupidity as much as Hallwright regrets his own – was a pretty dumb thing to do.

        • dumbwalla

          sorry, but the truth this that guy hallwright got out of his car first, then approached the victim (i bet he was thinking this ‘immigrant’ cannot speak much english so he could tell him whatever the hell he wanted and just walk away). what would YOU do, if someone comes over to your car, opens your cardoor, shouts abuse at you and walks away?
          Kim decided to give back what he had received, i don’t think he banged hallwright’s bonnet, that is hallwright’s version of the story. guy hallwright decided to run this poor guy over, so the victim was trying to jump onto the bonnet of hallwright’s car. that is how this ‘banging’ on the car happened.
          you run someone over with a motor vehicle and drive away, you should be jailed for that shit.

          • Travis Poulson


            i don’t think he banged hallwright’s bonnet, that is hallwright’s version of the story.”

            Oh yes, so it’s somehow less credible because you “don’t think he banged hallwright’s bonnet”. I gather you’re a key eye witness?

          • dumbwalla
          • Travis Poulson

            What about it genius? His version of events. That’s all. No more accurate than Hallwright’s version, he just gets to play the victim card because he got hit. He could tell a complete bullshit story and it will be believed because of his injuries. I’m not justifying Hallwrights actions, but saying “I don’t think” doesn’t add jack shit to arguing your point.

  • Tristanb

    The thing is, it wasn’t really the “old boys’ club” that got Hallwright such a light sentence, it’s the fact that Raoul Naive doesn’t believe in sentencing people to jail.

    He believes that the main purpose of the justice system is to help those who have committed crimes. I’m not a lawyer, I’m not a judge, but this is wrong. We all have that instinct, even as little kids, of realising that when someone does something wrong they shouldn’t get away with it.

    I’m sure many of us can remember that frustration when your sibling broke something and she got away with it. Religions, from Islam to Christianity to Buddhism, as silly as they all are, all have immense lists of punishments for sins. It’s in our nature to want justice.

    Unfortunately this natural justice seems to be “educated” out of people in law school, and those who best become amoral become the perverse creatures known as judges!

202%