Mills v The Queen - [2020] NZCA 88

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA748/2015
[2020] NZCA 88

BETWEEN	JAMES ANDREW MILLS Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	5 March 2020
Court:	Collins, Simon France and Lang JJ
Counsel:	E A Hall for Appellant F R J Sinclair for Respondent
Judgment:	3 April 2020 at 4pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time is granted.
BThe application to adduce further evidence is declined.
CThe appeal against conviction is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Collins J)

Introduction

On 11 May 2010, Mr Mills pleaded guilty to having murdered Mr Faulkner on 4 September 2009. He was sentenced on 16 June 2010 to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 11 years.[1] He now appeals his conviction, saying that Mr Faulkner was shot by accident during a struggle and that, at most, he is guilty of manslaughter.

Background

[1]R v Mills HC Palmerston North CRI-2009-054-3808, 16 June 2010.

At the time he shot Mr Faulkner, Mr Mills was living in a small housing unit in Palmerston North with his partner, Ms Parker. Mr Faulkner had been paid $140 to provide Ms Parker with methamphetamine. When he defaulted in completing his side of the drug deal, Mr Faulkner was invited to the place where Mr Mills and Ms Parker were living. There he was met by Mr Mills, who was armed with a modified rifle. Soon after Mr Faulkner entered the unit a neighbour heard Ms Parker arguing with a man. The neighbour then heard a sound consistent with a gun being discharged.
At the time Mr Faulkner was shot, he was positioned close to the door of the unit with his head facing the direction of the door. The bullet passed through folds in the right sleeve of Mr Faulkner’s sweatshirt and then struck him beneath the right side of his chin. The bullet entered Mr Faulkner’s left upper chest and exited, splintering his left upper arm bone. The bullet penetrated the lounge wall at a height of 1.135 metres from the floor. Mr Faulkner was 1.85 metres tall. Police analysis suggested Mr Faulkner’s right arm must have been raised in the general direction of where the bullet was fired and that his right elbow was above the line of his right shoulder. The police concluded Mr Faulkner was likely to have been crouching or stooping at the time he was shot. This analysis is contested by Mr Mills.
What is not disputed is that after he was shot Mr Faulkner managed to grab the gun from Mr Mills and walk out of the unit. He collapsed and died about 50 metres away. When he was found, the firearm was close to Mr Faulkner’s body.
Later that day, Mr Mills went to the police station. His clothing was stained in places with blood. He told the police that Mr Faulkner had come to the unit where Mr Mills and Ms Parker…

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 Mills v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Mills v The Queen [2020] NZCA 88
Case: [2020] NZCA 88
Decision Date: 3 April 2020 at 4pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mills appeals against his conviction for the murder of Mr Faulkner. Mills pleaded guilty to murder in the High Court at Palmerston North in 2010. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 11 years. Mills now appeals against his conviction. He claims that the gun that killed Mr Faulkner discharged accidentally during a struggle and that at most, he is guilty of manslaughter. The appeal was filed more than five years after the time limit for appealing a conviction had expired. The Court grants an extension of time to hear the appeal. Mills' counsel argues that Mills' guilty plea was induced by a number of factors including his poor health, lack of understanding of the basis for the murder charge, and his desire to protect his partner, Ms Parker, from being prosecuted. The Court finds that Mills made a conscious, well-informed decision to plead guilty to murder. There is no basis for establishing any of the recognised exceptional circumstances to allow an appeal against conviction where a guilty plea has been entered. Mills argues that the gun discharged accidentally during a struggle and he seeks to adduce further evidence to support his case. The Court finds that the evidence offered by Mills does not provide a cogent basis upon which to conclude that the gun discharged accidentally during a struggle. The appeal against conviction is dismissed. The Court declines to admit the additional evidence offered in support of the appeal. It is not cogent in the sense it does not undermine the safety of Mills' conviction. The application for an extension of time is granted. The application to adduce further evidence is declined. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

Orders