Christison v R - [2017] NZCA 168

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA466/2016
[2017] NZCA 168

BETWEEN	RAYMOND SHAYNE CHRISTISON Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	5 April 2017
Court:	Randerson, Clifford and Whata JJ
Counsel:	L B Cordwell for Appellant J C Pike QC for Respondent
Judgment:	9 May 2017 at 9:30am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for an extension of time to file the appeal is granted.
B The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Clifford J)

Introduction

In late September 2013 Raymond Shayne Christison pleaded guilty in the District Court at Hastings to the murder of his former long-term partner, Gail Constant Bower. On 24 October that year, and following a disputed facts hearing,[1] Mr Christison was sentenced by Heath J in the High Court at Napier to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 17 years.[2]
[1]R v Christison [2013] NZHC 2813 [Disputed facts judgment].
[2]R v Christison [2013] NZHC 2814 [Sentencing decision].
Mr Christison now appeals that sentence on the basis that MPI is manifestly unjust.
Mr Christison’s appeal is well out of time. The Crown, however, raises no issues with that. We accordingly grant Mr Christison an extension of time to file his appeal.

Facts

In February 2013 Mr Christison and Ms Bower separated after a long-term relationship of 23 years. There had been difficulties in the relationship for some time. In December 2004, Mr Christison had assaulted Ms Bower. He pleaded guilty to the crime of male assaults female and was ordered to come up for sentence if called upon. Around the same time, Ms Bower sought and obtained a temporary protection order. However, the substantive application was later withdrawn and Mr Christison and Ms Bower continued to live together.
As Heath J put it in his judgment on the disputed facts:[3]
As the years progressed, conflict appears to have increased. While there is no evidence of any further physical assaults, there is much to establish psychological pressure being exerted on Ms Bower by Mr Christison, particularly in the latter years of their relationship. …
[3]Disputed facts judgment, above n 1, at [8].
Ms Bower, together with their son Matthew who still lived at home, left what had up to then been the home she had shared with Mr Christison. In the weeks that followed Ms Bower sought help from the police on several occasions, because of her concern for her safety at the hands of Mr Christison.
On 4 February 2013 Mr Christison texted Matthew. Amongst other things, he said that if he could not have Ms Bower no one else would either. In early March 2013 Mr Christison was trespassed from the house Ms Bower had by then moved into with Matthew, after she had found him at her window one night. On 26 March 2013 a protection order was issued by the Hastings District Court in favour of Ms Bower against Mr Christison. A domestic violence alarm was installed at Ms…

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 Christison v R

Details

AGLC: Christison v R [2017] NZCA 168
Case: [2017] NZCA 168
Decision Date: 9 May 2017 at 9:30am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Raymond Shayne Christison appeals his sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 17 years, arguing it is manifestly unjust. The Crown does not contest the timeliness of the appeal. The appeal court grants Christison an extension of time to file his appeal. The court considers two propositions: first, that the starting point sentence should not have been more than 18 years, and second, that the one-year discount for mitigating factors was insufficient. The appeal court rejects both propositions. It finds that the starting point sentence of 18 to 20 years was appropriate, given the seriousness of the aggravating factors. The court also finds that the judge appropriately balanced the mitigating factors, including diminished responsibility, remorse, and the guilty plea. The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Orders