Yet another tragic domestic violence case in which physical abuse meted out by the male ends in death of the female partner.
Mr Everett and Ms Hart were a couple of mature years. For the last three of those years they had been in a relationship. Both suffered from alcoholism. The relationship was volatile. Mr Everett was prone to hitting Ms Hart. The converse did not apply. On Sunday 12 February 2017, Ms Hart died from serious head injuries. These were the result of Mr Everett striking her with his fists, possibly in combination with her then falling and hitting her head on a hard object.
Charged with manslaughter, Mr Everett pleaded not guilty. But a jury in the High Court at Auckland convicted him. Jagose J sentenced him to a term of seven years and six months’ imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of three years and nine months’.[1] Mr Everett appeals sentence only.

Facts

[1]R v Everett [2018] NZHC 468. Minimum period of imprisonment is referred to as “MPI” in this judgment.

Mr Everett and Ms Hart had been in a relationship for approximately three years. Mr Everett was 65 years of age; Ms Hart 53 years. They lived together in a small flat adjoining a rural property north of Auckland occupied by their landlords, a Ms Travis and a Mr Rush.
Mr Everett and Ms Hart suffered from alcoholism. The relationship was unhappy and volatile. Ms Hart was reclusive. She rarely left the house. She was often intoxicated and incapacitated. She had access to some funds, which she provided to Mr Everett. She was dependent on him to go out to obtain food and alcohol, and to prepare meals. He was in employment, and generally returned home from work via the pub in an intoxicated state. There were frequent heated, noisy arguments between the couple.
In the weeks leading up to Ms Hart’s death these arguments, and physical violence meted out by Mr Everett, escalated. He admitted in a police interview that he had slapped Ms Hart’s head, but said it was “not [a] full on bash session”. The Crown pathologist gave evidence of an apparent instance of traumatic head injury some two weeks prior to her death.
Mr Rush’s evidence was that the arguments had become more abusive in the weeks preceding Ms Hart’s death — “fights … rather than just yelling and screaming”. Mr Everett had told him Ms Hart was “worthless” and “a waste of space”. He hoped “she’d drop dead”. In his police interview he said…

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 Everett v R

Details

AGLC: Everett v R [2019] NZCA 68
Case: [2019] NZCA 68
Decision Date: 26 March 2019 at 9.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Everett v R [2019] NZCA 68 is an appeal against sentence by the appellant, Kevin Leslie Everett, who was convicted by a jury of manslaughter in the High Court. The victim, Ms Hart, was found to have died from serious head injuries inflicted by the appellant during a period of domestic violence. The trial Judge sentenced the appellant to a term of seven years and six months’ imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of three years and nine months. The appellant appeals only the minimum period of imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the sentence was not outside the available range. The Court noted that the appellant had a history of violence against Ms Hart, who was vulnerable owing to her alcoholism and dependence on the appellant. The callousness demonstrated by the appellant and the domestic setting of the offending were also aggravating circumstances. In addition, the appellant failed to seek medical assistance for Ms Hart after his assault on her. The Court found that the sentence imposed was a lenient one, and that the minimum period of imprisonment was appropriate.

Orders