Betteridge v R - [2019] NZCA 513

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA338/2019
[2019] NZCA 513

BETWEEN	KYRA BETTERIDGE Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	25 September 2019
Court:	Clifford, Lang and Ellis JJ
Counsel:	A J Maxwell-Scott for Appellant B D Tantrum and D R Green for Respondent
Judgment:	27 September 2019 at 11.30 am
Reasons:	24 October 2019

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application to adduce further evidence is granted.
BThe appeal is allowed.
CThe sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment is quashed and a sentence of eight months’ home detention is substituted.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Ellis J)

On 27 September 2019 we issued a results judgment on Ms Betteridge’s appeal against sentence.[1] We allowed her appeal, quashed her sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment and substituted a sentence of eight months’ home detention, with reasons to follow. These are those reasons.

Background

[1]Betteridge v R [2019] NZCA 463.

On 7 May 2019, Ms Betteridge pleaded guilty in the Hamilton High Court to one charge of conspiring to defeat the course of justice,[2] and one charge of misconduct in respect of human remains.[3] Her plea immediately followed a sentence indication in which Davison J indicated an end sentence of 20 and a half months’ imprisonment.[4] In doing so, he said:
[56] The discounts would bring the final sentence into the range where a sentence of home detention may be considered. Whether or not a sentence of home detention is imposed would depend on the contents of a pre-sentence report, and any other relevant information placed before the Court at sentencing.
[2]Crimes Act 1961, s 116 (maximum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment).
[3]Section 150(b) (maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment).
[4]R v Betteridge [2019] NZHC 999 [Sentence indication].
On 26 June 2019 Ms Betteridge was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment by Jagose J, who declined to convert it to home detention.[5] Central to his decision was the Judge’s view that the pre-sentence or Provision of Advice to Courts (PAC) report painted a dim picture of Ms Betteridge’s attitude and rehabilitative prospects.
[5]R v Betteridge [2019] NZHC 1480 [Sentencing notes].
Ms Betteridge appealed the refusal to impose home detention, on the grounds that the contents of the PAC report were wrong, misleading and unfair.

Ms Betteridge’s offending

The charges faced by Ms Betteridge arose out of the killing of Mitchell Paterson in July 2018. Mr Paterson had died while he was being driven in a car by associates of Ms Betteridge’s with the object of taking him to “talk” to Mr Leon Wilson, who was the president of the Waikato chapter of the Nomads gang. Mr Wilson was angry with Mr Paterson over some perceived slight.
In essence, Ms Betteridge was present at Mr Wilson’s home when her associates arrived with Mr Paterson’s dead body in the car. Although attempts were made to revive him these were unsuccessful. Talk turned to the need to dispose of his body.
It was decided…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Betteridge v R

Details

AGLC: Betteridge v R [2019] NZCA 513
Case: [2019] NZCA 513
Decision Date: 27 September 2019 at 11.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal from Ms Kyra Betteridge against the sentence imposed by the High Court for her involvement in the disposal of the body of Mitchell Paterson. Ms Betteridge had pleaded guilty to charges of conspiring to defeat the course of justice and misconduct in respect of human remains. The appeal focused on the refusal by the sentencing Judge to impose home detention instead of imprisonment. The Court of Appeal granted the application to adduce further evidence and found that the original sentence was flawed due to material inaccuracies and omissions in the Provision of Advice to Courts (PAC) report. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence of 21 months' imprisonment was quashed, substituting a sentence of eight months' home detention. This decision was based on the new evidence presented, which demonstrated Ms Betteridge's changed circumstances and willingness to engage in rehabilitation. The final orders included specific conditions for the home detention sentence, such as attending alcohol and drug counselling and psychological assessments, as well as restrictions on communication and association with certain individuals.

Orders