Legal Research
Cases
Lingman v The King

Lingman v The King

Case [2023] NZCA 209 2 June 2023

Self-Defence

Mens Rea & Intention

Admissibility of Evidence

Causation

Judicial Review

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA409/2021
[2023] NZCA 209

BETWEEN	JAY CHRISTOPHER LINGMAN Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	22 March 2023
Court:	Clifford, Dunningham and Cull JJ
Counsel:	T M Cooper KC and C G Farquhar for Appellant Z R Johnston and B So for Respondent
Judgment:	2 June 2023 at 3.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Cull J)

Mr Lingman was convicted of murder by a jury in the Auckland High Court before Harland J. He pleaded guilty to charges of possession for supply of a Class A drug (cocaine), a Class B drug (MDMA) and a Class C drug (diphenidine and phenethylamine). He was sentenced by Harland J to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 15 years and two months.[1] He now appeals his conviction for murder only.

Background

[1]R v Lingman [2021] NZHC 1394.

Mr Lingman and the victim were both involved in dealing illegal drugs. On 24 February 2019, the victim arrived at the front door of Mr Lingman’s rural property. Mr Lingman fired six shots from his Ruger .22 semi-automatic firearm, three of which entered the victim’s skull and caused his death.
Mr Lingman took steps to conceal the victim’s body and belongings. Shortly after the shooting, Mr Lingman parked the victim’s vehicle behind another vehicle on his property and discarded the victim’s phone. The next day, he purchased a large chest freezer and severed the victim’s legs with a chainsaw to fit the victim’s body into the freezer. The freezer was left in plain view near the front door of his house, until it was put in a shed at Mr Lingman’s address. Two days later, he purchased a shipping container and subsequently purchased some quad bike ramps to hide the victim’s car that was still on his property. Some days later, he obtained water from a neighbour and a water delivery service to water blast the property and remove any incriminating evidence.
The victim was reported missing by his flatmate on 27 February 2019. The police were able to access the victim’s phone location data, which led them to Mr Lingman’s address. On arriving at his address, the police noticed a strong smell of bleach and signs of unusual water blasting at the front door. The police noticed blood on the top of a chest freezer near the handle, at the rear of the property. On opening the freezer, the police found the victim’s body. They also located the victim’s car, drugs, and a number of guns and a chainsaw with the victim’s blood on it. When spoken to by police, Mr Lingman said, “I was fearing for my life. … This arsehole was coming to kill me and my son.”
Mr Lingman was then charged with murder and the three drug-related charges of possession for supply. Mr Lingman was tried for murder before Harland…

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 Lingman v The King

Details

AGLC: Lingman v The King [2023] NZCA 209
Case: [2023] NZCA 209
Decision Date: 2 June 2023 at 3.00 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jay Christopher Lingman appeals his conviction for murder, arguing that the trial judge made several errors in directing the jury on self-defence, prejudice and sympathy, and the admission of a post-mortem photograph, which he claims led to a miscarriage of justice. The Court of Appeal examines each ground of appeal. Regarding the self-defence directions, the Court considers the inclusion of the word "honestly" in the directions, finding that it emphasised that the belief was actually held and did not confuse the jury regarding the standard and burden of proof. The Court also addresses other criticisms of the self-defence directions, finding no material errors. For the prejudice and sympathy directions, the Court concludes that the directions adequately addressed any unfair prejudice arising from the Crown's emphasis on the appellant's post-death conduct. Finally, concerning the admission of the post-mortem photograph, the Court finds that it was admissible and probative of the appellant's intent and that the directions adequately dealt with any unfairly prejudicial effect. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

Orders