| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA |
| CA258/2018 [2021] NZCA 568 |
| BETWEEN | MARTIN GRANT PRICE |
| AND | THE QUEEN |
| Hearing: | 27 September 2021 |
Court: | Cooper, Venning and Palmer JJ |
Counsel: | R M Mansfield QC for Appellant |
Judgment: | 29 October 2021 at 11 am |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
AThe application to admit fresh evidence is declined.
BThe appeal against conviction is dismissed.
CThe appeal against sentence is allowed.
DThe minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years is quashed and replaced with a minimum period of imprisonment of 14 years.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Venning J)
Martin Price killed John Morton in Nelson on 4 August 2016. A jury found Mr Price guilty of murder following a trial in the Nelson High Court. In doing so the jury rejected Mr Price’s defence of self-defence. Dobson J found that s 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002 was engaged and sentenced Mr Price to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 17 years.[1]
[1]R v Price [2018] NZHC 811 [High Court judgment].
Mr Price appeals against conviction and sentence.
Background facts
Mr Morton lived on a boat moored in the inter-tidal zones of the estuary at Nelson Haven. Mr Price and Mr Morton were known to each other. They had fallen out over a relatively minor debt. Both used alcohol and drugs. In the early hours of the morning on 4 August 2016, Mr Price went from the Nelson CBD, where he had been drinking, to the estuary where Mr Morton lived on his boat. Mr Price thought he might be able to get some cannabis from Mr Morton. He went onto Mr Morton’s boat. There was a dispute which turned violent. The fighting started on Mr Morton’s boat but progressed to the ground around the boat. During the course of the fight Mr Morton suffered seven stab wounds and a number of blunt force injuries. Mr Price left the scene and returned to the Nelson CBD. He was seen on CCTV footage back in Nelson at 3.20 am. He appeared to have blood on his pants and to have a slight limp. He was also observed by members of the public at that time to have a cut lip. He was given a lift back to his home. Once at his home he disposed of his clothing, shoes, and a knife. Those items were never located.
Mr Morton’s body was found the following morning on another of the boats moored in the estuary. He was curled up in a foetal position on his right-hand side in the rear corner of the other boat. It seemed he had tried to break into its cabin. Forensic examination confirmed that Mr Morton had suffered a stab wound to the left side of his chest, two stab wounds to the back of his neck, lacerations to his left jaw line between the ear and chin, a large…
Continue reading Price v R
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Price v R [2021] NZCA 568
- Case
- [2021] NZCA 568
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Martin Price, was found guilty of murder following a trial in the Nelson High Court. The trial rejected the defence of self-defence. Dobson J found that s 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002 was engaged and sentenced Mr Price to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 17 years.
The Court of Appeal considered the appeal against conviction and sentence. The appeal against conviction was based on the submission that the evidence of Mr McCreath, a prisoner who had been in custody with Mr Price, should not have been admitted at trial, the trial Judge’s directions to the jury about Mr McCreath’s evidence were inadequate, and the admissibility of Mr McCreath’s evidence led to a miscarriage of justice.
The Court of Appeal held that the submission that the evidence of Mr McCreath should not have been admitted at trial was not supported by the relevant authorities. The Court also held that the trial Judge’s directions to the jury about Mr McCreath’s evidence were adequate, and the admissibility of Mr McCreath’s evidence did not lead to a miscarriage of justice.
The appeal against sentence was based on the submission that neither s 104(c), the home invasion provision, nor s 104(e), the brutality provision, were engaged. The Court of Appeal held that while the murder had not involved the unlawful entry onto or unlawful presence in a dwelling place, the murder did involve the necessary high level of brutality or callousness required to engage s 104(e). However, the Court of Appeal also held that it would be manifestly unjust to impose an MPI of 17 years on Mr Price.
As a result, the appeal against conviction is dismissed, the appeal against sentence is allowed, and the imposition of an MPI of 17 years is quashed. Mr Price is to serve an MPI of 14 years.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.