Garath Richard Collings v The King - [2023] NZSC 67

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 4/2023
[2023] NZSC 67

BETWEEN	GARATH RICHARD COLLINGS Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	O’Regan, Williams and Kós JJ
Counsel:	D J Matthews for Applicant E J Hoskin for Respondent
Judgment:	14 June 2023

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant, Mr Garath Collings, was convicted of murdering Mr Robin Friend.[1] He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 11 years.[2] His sentence appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed.[3] He now seeks leave to appeal to this Court arguing that the circumstances of the offending justified a departure from the statutory default of life imprisonment.

Facts

[1]Crimes Act 1961, s 167.

[2]R v Collings [2022] NZHC 1275 (Mander J) [Sentencing remarks].

[3]Collings v R [2022] NZCA 605 (Gilbert, Brewer and Moore JJ) [CA judgment].

On 13 July 2020, Mr Collings drove himself and another male to the home of Ms Kyla Fielding, intending to pick her up. When Ms Fielding got into the car, the victim, with whom Mr Collings was acquainted, also approached the car. What happened next was captured on a nearby CCTV camera. A short “bickering” exchange ensued between the two men through the driver’s window. Mr Friend then left, walking round the front of the vehicle whereupon Mr Collings deliberately drove at and over Mr Friend, stopping only when he crashed the car into a tree some distance away. Mr Friend suffered crush injuries and died on the scene.[4]
[4]The facts are laid out in the Sentencing remarks, above n 2, at [3]–[10].
A psychiatric report obtained by Mr Collings advised as follows:
It is likely Mr Collings’ threat processing mechanisms in his brain were deranged at the time, due to the combined effects of grief [at the recent death of his daughter], [long-term] PTSD and methamphetamine abuse.
Relevantly, Mr Collings alleges that as Mr Friend walked away, he threatened Mr Collings’ family. He said to Mr Collings words to the effect of “your kids better watch it”. Ms Fielding confirmed this in her evidence and the Crown accepted at trial that such a threat was a reasonable possibility. That said, the passengers described the exchange between Mr Collings and Mr Friend as “not particularly noteworthy”, although it had caused Mr Collings to “become a wee bit flustered”.[5]

Manifestly unjust sentence

[5]Sentencing remarks, above n 2, at [6].

Section 102(1) of the Sentencing Act 2002 provides that an offender who is convicted of murder must be sentenced to imprisonment for life unless, given the circumstances of the offence and the offender, a life sentence would be manifestly unjust.

Lower court judgments

At sentencing Mander J acknowledged that the alleged threat to Mr Collings’ family, combined with his grief, depressive state and after-effects of methamphetamine use, may have played a part in his reaction. However, the Judge found these factors were not such…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Garath Richard Collings v The King and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] NZSC 67
Decision Date: 14 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the applicant, Garath Richard Collings, sought leave to appeal against his conviction for the murder of Robin Friend, and the subsequent sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 11 years. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New Zealand, with O’Regan, Williams, and Kós JJ presiding over the matter. The applicant was represented by D J Matthews, while E J Hoskin appeared for the respondent, The King. The Court handed down its judgment on 14 June 2023, dismissing the application for leave to appeal.
The legal issues that the Court had to decide were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly unjust, and whether the proposed appeal raised a matter of general or public importance. The Court had to determine if the circumstances of the offending justified a departure from the statutory default of life imprisonment for murder. The Court also needed to consider if there was a reasonable prospect of establishing that the sentence imposed was manifestly unjust and if there was an appearance of a miscarriage of justice.
The Court found that the attack by Mr Collings was deliberate and grossly disproportionate, despite being provoked. It was established that Mr Collings struggled with addiction and poor mental health, but the Court of Appeal's evaluation of the role these matters played in his actions was not to be revisited. The Courts below applied settled principles to their evaluation of the circumstances of the offence and the offender as directed by s 102 of the Sentencing Act 2002. Consequently, the Court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of establishing that the sentence imposed was manifestly unjust, and no appearance of a miscarriage of justice. The proposed appeal also did not raise any matter of principle. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
The final orders of the Court were that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Orders