R v Anderson
[2025] NZHC 2935
•6 October 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE
CRI-2024-043-001277
[2025] NZHC 2935
THE KING v
BASIL THOMAS ANDERSON
Hearing: 6 October 2025 Counsel:
H Bullock and J M Woodcock for Crown
P M Keegan KC and N P Bourke for Defendant
Sentencing:
6 October 2025
SENTENCING NOTES OF RADICH J
Introduction
[1] Basil Anderson, you appear for sentencing today after you pleaded guilty to manslaughter for the death of your father, Basil Anderson Snr.1
Approach to sentencing
[2] The primary purposes for which I am sentencing you today, under the Sentencing Act 2002, are to hold you accountable for the harm that you have caused by your offending; to promote in you a sense of responsibility for, and acknowledgement of, that harm; to denounce your conduct and deter others from
1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 158, 160(2)(a), 171; maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
R v ANDERSON [2025] NZHC 2935 [6 October 2025]
acting similarly; and to assist in your rehabilitation and reintegration into society.2 I must consider the gravity of your offending and the degree of your culpability. Your sentence must be consistent with the sentences imposed in other reasonably similar cases,3 and I should impose the least restrictive sentence that is appropriate in the circumstances.4
[3]To determine the appropriate sentence for you, I must take two steps:
(a)the first step is to calculate a starting point, incorporating adjustments for any aggravating and mitigating factors of your offending; and
(b)the second step is to incorporate all aggravating and mitigating factors that are personal to you.5
[4]The maximum penalty for manslaughter is life imprisonment.
Victims
[5] Before I go on to discuss the sentence in more detail, I acknowledge the victims of your offending. Your father was very close to you. In a pre-sentencing report, you and your father are described as having been the “best of mates”. You lived with, or near to, him for many years. You worked alongside each other – both in paid employment and on a family property project.
[6] Your mother and your sisters – all of whom are children of your mother and your father – will all be deeply upset and affected by your father’s death. Members of your family are here today and others are watching from the Whanganui courthouse.
Offending
[7] I need now to explain the events leading up to your offending and the offending itself.
2 Sentencing Act 2002, s 7.
3 Section 8(a) and (e).
4 Section 8(g).
5 Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296, [2020] 3 NZLR 583 at [46].
[8] In the early hours of Saturday, 24 August 2024, you attacked your father with a knife, causing his death. You inflicted 31 injuries with the knife, four of which were stab wounds. One stab wound was to your father’s abdomen. It injured his aorta, and caused him to bleed to death.
[9] At the time, you were living in a caravan on your father’s property. During the afternoon of the day before the offending, you called emergency services, telling them you were being hypnotised and had been under mind control since you were 15 years old. You said that you had just woken up and could not remember your life. After the call taker asked to speak to someone else in the house, the call was disconnected. About 10 minutes later, you called again, repeating that you had been hypnotised and that you were under your father’s mind control.
[10] Your father was present at the time. The emergency services operator managed to obtain his contact details and talk to him directly. He told emergency services that you were confused and sleep deprived, and that you were having memory issues. The emergency services operator suggested that he should contact mental health services on your behalf.
[11] Some time later, the police were called to the property by your sister who had asked for assistance over a family harm incident involving you and your father. She was concerned about your behaviour. However, when police officers arrived you were calm and cooperative. You and your father greeted the police officers together. You told the police officers that you had started using methamphetamine to help you at the gym and that you had used it the night before. You said that you had woken up confused and hallucinating and had accused your father of hypnotising you, but that you had snapped out of it. Your father confirmed that you had been using methamphetamine and cannabis. He confirmed also that you had not been yourself and that you had accused him of hypnotising you. He said that you would not believe him when he told you that he was not doing that. The police officers left after encouraging you and your father to seek medical advice and support for you. Your father told the police officers that he felt safe at the house.
[12] Your offending took place the next morning. At 8.46 am, your sister called emergency services and reported that you were trying to stab your father with a knife. An ambulance and police were sent to the scene. Then, at 8.53 am you called emergency services. You said that you had woken up from a daydream under what you described as MK ultra mind control and that you needed police help. You told the operator that you had stabbed your father but that he was still alive. The operator told you to stem your father’s bleeding and to monitor him, which you agreed to do. At
9.01 am, you told the operator that you thought he was dead. The operator asked you to perform CPR. You agreed to do that at first but, soon after, changed your mind and declined to do so. You told the operator you were glad to have done what you did and started yelling “yeah”.
[13] When the police arrived, they arrested you. You complied with their instructions. Your father was declared dead shortly afterwards.
[14] Later, when police officers spoke to you, you admitted stabbing your father. You said that you thought your father had been mind-controlling you and your sisters. You said also that your father had tried to hit you with a bat, and that you had taken bat off him. When the police asked you where you stabbed your father, you replied that you had stabbed him in the head with a butcher’s knife and that you should have taken his head off.
[15] You have pleaded guilty to the charge of manslaughter and it is that charge that I am sentencing you on today; not murder. That means I must sentence you on the basis that you caused your father’s death but that you did not have murderous intent because of your mental state at the time.
[16] Your mental state at the time is described in psychological reports written about you by Dr Peter Dean and Dr Gordon Lehany, all of which I have read. In the reports, it was found that, at the time of your offending, you were in a delusional state induced by methamphetamine and cannabis. While in that delusional state, you believed that your father had hypnotised and “mind-controlled” you, that he was a demon, that he might have killed other people, and that he might kill you and your sisters.
[17] A delusional, psychotic state explains why you did what you did when you had no other apparent motivations for your actions. As I have mentioned, you had a particularly close relationship with your father. Being in a delusional state explains also why you called the police after you had attacked your father. You have said that you called the police for help because you thought, while in that delusional state, that you were the victim.
[18] While you have a history of alcohol and cannabis abuse, you were not a regular user of methamphetamine. You first used methamphetamine about 12 months before the offending and only began to use it regularly a few weeks before your offending, reportedly to help you have better results at the gym. After you tried it, you began to use more and more, until one or two days before your offending you began to have drug-induced delusions. You told police that you had taken methamphetamine on 22 August 2024, two days before the offending, and that you had taken cannabis on 24 August, the day of the offending. After the offending, police conducted an intoxication assessment. It came back with a negative result.
[19] You recovered from your short-term psychosis after the effects of the methamphetamine wore off. You now realise what you did.
Starting point
[20] I turn now to the starting point for your sentence. Because there is no tariff case for manslaughter,6 I will come to the starting point by considering similarities between your case and cases referred to me by the Crown and by your counsel. R v Taueki can be helpful also in assessing the starting point for charges of manslaughter where an offender clearly intended to inflict serious injury.7 In Taueki, the Court of Appeal dealt with grievous bodily harm offending, which is less serious than manslaughter because it does not involve death. The Court said that cases would fall within one of three bands, reflecting their seriousness. Cases that fall within the third band are the most serious and should attract a starting point of between nine to 14 years’ imprisonment.
6 Mehrok v R [2021] NZCA 370 at [18].
7 R v Taueki [2005] 3 NZLR 372 (CA); see R v Tai [2010] NZCA 598 at [11]–[12].
[21] In the case of manslaughter, the principles and purposes of sentencing take on a slightly different flavour to reflect the fact that manslaughter involves unlawful acts that were intentional, but that resulted unintentionally in the death of another. The likely deterrent effect of a sterner sentence must be measured against the intentional unlawful action; not the unintended consequence of death.8 That is another reason why Taueki is a helpful comparison.
[22]The Crown says that the starting point should be not less than 10 years.
[23] Your counsel say that an appropriate starting point is in the vicinity of nine years’ imprisonment. And your counsel say that, in addition, provision should be made for your mental health at the time of the offending.
Mental health at the time of the offending
[24] Insanity is a full defence in New Zealand. A person will be not guilty by reason of insanity if, at the time of their offending, they were labouring under a “disease of the mind” which meant they were incapable of either understanding their actions or incapable of knowing what they were doing was morally wrong. In some situations, a defendant’s mental state at the time of their offending will reduce their culpability even if it was insufficient to qualify for insanity.9 Under s 9(2)(e) of the Sentencing Act, one of the mitigating factors the Court must take into account, to the extent that it is applicable in a case, is that an offender has, or at the time the offence was committed had, diminished intellectual capacity or understanding. However, the Act goes on to say in s 9(3) that, despite the potential mitigating factor, the Court “must not take into account by way of mitigation” the fact that an offender was at the time of committing the offence affected by the voluntary consumption or use of a drug.
[25] It is clear that at the time of your offending your mental state was abnormal. You were suffering from delusions. The delusions explain why you did what you did. However, I agree with the Crown that your delusional state did not diminish your culpability in doing what you did. I accept Dr Dean’s opinion that your delusions were
8 R v Leuta [2002] 1 NZLR 215 (CA) at [63].
9 Shailer v R [2017] NZCA 38, [2017] 2 NZLR 629 at [50].
the result of the choice you made to consume methamphetamine and cannabis. They were caused by drug intoxication or withdrawal – noting that by the time you underwent the intoxication assessment after the offending, a negative result was produced.
[26] As Dr Dean said in one of his reports, methamphetamine in general causes a cluster of symptoms that are indistinguishable from psychosis. It is likely that the cannabis you had been taking regularly for many years made you more susceptible to those effects. You had no symptoms of psychosis prior to your increased use of methamphetamine and have not had symptoms since shortly afterwards. Your condition resolved within a withdrawal-induced psychosis timeframe, which is commonly a week or more. You have no other history of psychosis that would explain your mental state.
[27] I accept that your actions were a direct result of your delusional state of mind at the time. However, your drug use is the only explanation for that mental state and, in terms of considering culpability factors, your choice to consume drugs is not a factor that can reduce your culpability.10 To the extent that your delusional state did affect your culpability – and that really is the only explanation for your actions – it is reflected adequately in the manslaughter charge. At the same time, I do see that your substance use disorder at the time is a personal mitigating factor that can be taken into account in the second stage of sentencing, and I will come back to that shortly.
Assessment
[28]The following aggravating factors are present in your offending:11
(a)The fact that your offending caused your father’s death.
(b)Your use of a knife as a weapon.12
10 Sentencing Act, s 9(3); and see R v Wihongi [2011] NZCA 592, [2012] 1 NZLR 775 at [54].
11 See Sentencing Act, s 9 and R v Taueki, above n 7.
12 Solicitor General v Kane CA154/98 at 9.
(c)Your extreme violence. You engaged in a sustained attack that resulted in over 30 wounds, including four separate stab wounds and including wounds to the head. Attacking the head is an aggravating factor.
[29] I do not accept, as the Crown has suggested, that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the offending involved premeditation or that your father was vulnerable due to his age (which was 60) or his comparative size. I do not accept, either, that home invasion can be said to have been an aggravating factor. You had permission from your father to come and go from the home, at least during the day time. You did not enter, for example, at night when it may have been the case that you did not have authority to enter.
[30] Nonetheless, the aggravating factors present place the offending clearly within band three of Taueki, which results in a starting point of between nine and 14 years’ imprisonment.
[31] Having considered the cases referred to by counsel for the Crown and your counsel carefully,13 I consider that R v Timoti is the most illustrative.14 In that case, the defendant received a starting point of nine years and six months’ imprisonment on the lead charge of manslaughter. He had carried out a frenzied attack on the victim with two knives while in a delusional state of mind, a state of mind that followed his consumption of alcohol and produced generally erratic behaviour on the day of the offending. He believed that the victim had killed his children. Rather than factoring in the defendant’s delusional state in setting the starting point, the Judge granted a discount when assessing personal mitigating factors.
[32] Your offending differs in some ways from that in Timoti. In Timoti, the defendant’s distorted mental state was not attributable to drug use alone. He did not have high levels of methamphetamine in his system at the time of the offending. In contrast, your delusional state was attributable to your consumption of drugs alone. The Crown has suggested that Timoti was also less serious because you inflicted a
13 R v Harris [2023] NZCA 462, R v Edwardson HC Rotorua CRI-2006-069-1101, 27 April, R v Herewini HC Rotorua CRI-2006-063-3151, 5 October 2007, R v Day [2014] NZHC 3412, R v Timoti [2024] NZHC 70, R v Ko [2024] NZHC 3311 and R v Hanara [2023] NZHC 2057.
14 R v Timoti, above n 13.
greater number of wounds overall. I see the severity of the attack in Timoti as slightly more serious because, despite the greater number of wounds you inflicted, in Timoti there were effectively two attacks with a pause in between and the defendant was using two knives.
[33] Overall, in taking into account all of the considerations that I have mentioned in this assessment, I consider that a starting point of nine years and six months is appropriate.
Credit for personal circumstances
Guilty plea
[34] Counsel and I agree that you are entitled to a credit for your guilty plea of 25 per cent.15
Remorse
[35] If, on a proper and robust evaluation of all the circumstances, a defendant has demonstrated genuine remorse, they may be entitled to a credit for that that is separate to the credit for a guilty plea.16 I accept that you are truly remorseful for your actions. Once your delusions dissipated, you realised what you had done and you felt truly sorry for having done it, both in relation to your father and in relation to the remaining members of your family who have lost a treasured relative. You have been willing and motivated to attend a restorative justice conference, although one has not yet taken place because of the view that it was best to have sentencing undertaken in the first instance. I grant a discount of seven per cent to reflect your genuine remorse.
Background
[36] Despite s 9(3) of the Sentencing Act (to which I referred earlier), drug addiction issues may be taken into account in considering a potential discount if there is an established causative connection between the addiction and the offending.17 That
15 Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135, [2011] 1 NZLR 607 at [75].
16 At [64].
17 Izett v R [2024] NZCA 64 at [75]; and see generally Berkland v R [2022] NZSC 143, [2022] 1 NZLR 509 at [109].
will be the case if an offender’s substance abuse issues help to explain the circumstances that led to their offending.
[37] Dr Dean found that you have “substance use disorder” for methamphetamine and cannabis. I accept that your history of cannabis abuse and, in my view, addiction is something that causatively contributed to your offending because it helps to explain the circumstances which led to your offending. I grant a discount of five per cent.
Minimum period of imprisonment
[38] The Crown has asked that a minimum period of imprisonment of four years be imposed. If I do not do so, you will become eligible for parole after one-third of your sentence. That does not mean automatic release after that period of time. There is no entitlement to parole. It means you would go before the Parole Board at that time and the board would release you only if it assesses that you would not pose an “undue risk” to the safety of the community if released.
[39] Under the Sentencing Act, I may only impose a minimum period of imprisonment if I am satisfied that the existing non-parole period would be insufficient to hold you accountable, to denounce your conduct, to deter you from committing similar offences, or to protect the community from you.18 I accept submissions by your counsel that there is no need for a minimum period of imprisonment in the circumstances. I accept that the extent of the remorse you feel for what you have done will be a sufficient deterrent for you to strictly avoid methamphetamine for the rest of your life. In those circumstances, I am not satisfied that the non-parole period is insufficient to deter you from future offending or to protect the community from you. Furthermore, I am not satisfied that the non-parole period is insufficient to hold you to account or to denounce your conduct.
Name suppression
[40] Before moving to the final stage of sentencing, I deal with the issue of name suppression. You currently have interim name suppression on the basis of a decision
18 Sentencing Act, s 86.
that was made at the outset that favoured protection of the young daughters of the deceased. As a result of updated information, the position is that there is no ongoing need for that to be the case. The charge has been reduced from murder to manslaughter and the Court now has updated information before it.
[41] Accordingly, the threshold for a permanent order for name suppression is no longer met and the interim orders for name suppression now come to an end, accordingly.
End sentence
[42]Please stand now, Mr Anderson.
[43] For the manslaughter of Basil Anderson Snr, I impose a sentence of six years’ imprisonment.
[44]Thank you, you may stand down now.
Radich J
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, New Plymouth for Crown
0
11
0