Lane v R - [2010] NZCA 245

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA81/2010
[2010] NZCA 245
BETWEENKARL JAMES COPLEY LANE

Appellant

ANDTHE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing:3 June 2010

Court:Arnold, Wild and Simon France JJ
Counsel:R B Crowley and J A Younger for the Appellant

F Sinclair for the Respondent

Judgment:10 June 2010 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Wild J)
Introduction
[1] Mr Lane appeals against the minimum non-parole period of imprisonment (MPI) of 14 years fixed by Miller J, when he sentenced Mr Lane to life imprisonment in the Wanganui High Court on 23 September 2009. Mr Lane had pleaded guilty to one count of murder and two of kidnapping.
[2] The submission on appeal is that the MPI is manifestly excessive for two reasons:
(a)The Judge’s starting point of 15 years in arriving at the MPI was too high; and
(b)The deduction of two years (about 13 per cent) off that 15 years starting point allowed by the Judge for Mr Lane’s guilty pleas and remorse was insufficient.

The one year uplift applied by the Judge from his starting point to take account of aggravating features is not challenged. The contention for Mr Lane is that the starting point should have been 12 not 15 years, uplifted by one year to 13 years. Allowing a two year (some 20 per cent) discount for guilty pleas and remorse should have resulted in a sentence of 11 years.
The facts
[3] In June 2008 Mr Lane was driving around Wanganui. Three women and one man were passengers in the car. He had been drinking and using methamphetamine. He got into an argument with his three women passengers as to the whereabouts of two other people he wanted to confront. One of the women, Ms Bannister, said she knew where one of the two was. While Ms Bannister and Ms Coley were out of the car, Mr Lane turned to Ms Timmins who was sitting in the back seat with the man. He pointed a .38 mm pistol at her and demanded to know how long she had known Ms Bannister. She replied “Since Wednesday or Thursday”. Mr Lane said “You’re lying” and shot her through the temple. The man, who later described Mr Lane’s tone and manner as casual, panicked and fled the car.
[4] The other two women then returned. When Mr Lane told them he had shot Ms Timmins they did not believe him and got into the car. He then threatened them with the pistol and demanded that Ms Coley drive around Wanganui. This happened for about 20–25 minutes, and formed the basis of the two kidnapping charges. Mr Lane refused repeated requests to take Ms Timmins to hospital, and ordered Ms Coley to drive to Kaitoke Forest where he could “finish her off”. At some point the two women managed to escape from the car. Mr Lane then drove the car around himself, with Ms Timmins still unconscious…

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 Lane v R

Details

AGLC: Lane v R [2010] NZCA 245
Case: [2010] NZCA 245
Decision Date: 10 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand considered an appeal by Karl James Copley Lane against the minimum non-parole period of imprisonment of 14 years set by the High Court. Lane had pleaded guilty to one count of murder and two counts of kidnapping. The appeal centred on two main arguments: that the starting point of 15 years for the minimum non-parole period was too high, and that the reduction of two years for Lane's guilty pleas and remorse was insufficient. The Court examined these arguments in light of the circumstances of the crime and the relevant sentencing principles.

In assessing the starting point, the Court compared the case to several precedents and found that the 15-year starting point was within the acceptable range, given the brutality and callousness of the murder. The Court also considered the impact on the victim's family and the offender's personal circumstances, including his history of violent offending and drug use. Regarding the reduction for guilty pleas and remorse, the Court found that the two-year discount appropriately reflected Lane's actions demonstrating remorse, such as his efforts to turn himself in and his full admission to the police. The Court concluded that neither appeal point had merit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the sentence, upholding the 14-year minimum non-parole period. The decision affirmed the High Court's assessment of the appropriate sentence in light of the aggravating and mitigating factors present in the case.

Orders