Legal Research
Cases
R v Baker

R v Baker

Case [2007] NZCA 277 5 July 2007

High Level of Brutality

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA36/07
[2007] NZCA 277
THE QUEEN
v
GEORGE CHARLIE BAKER
Hearing:26 June 2007

Court:William Young P, Randerson and Panckhurst JJ
Counsel:Appellant in person

S J E Moore and B H Dickey for Crown

Judgment:5 July 2007 at 2 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS
(Given by William Young P)
Introduction
[1]       On 24 August 2006 the appellant appeared in the North Shore District Court. He was in custody on charges of aggravated robbery, wounding with intent and threatening to kill. The first two charges (aggravated robbery and wounding with intent) arose out of an incident which had occurred in April that year. The threatening to kill charges were related to letters the appellant sent in June 2006 to the victim of the earlier offending and another person. After his court appearance on 24 August, the appellant was transferred back to the Auckland Central Remand Prison in a prison van with a number of other prisoners including Liam Ashley. In the course of the trip the appellant murdered Liam.
[2]       He pleaded guilty to the resulting charge of murder and also to the charges associated with the April and June 2006 offending. On 15 December 2006 Harrison J sentenced him to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 18 years. He imposed an effective concurrent sentence of four years’ imprisonment on the other charges.
[3]       The appellant now appeals against sentence. We note that his notice of appeal initially extended to his conviction as well but the arguments advanced by him only addressed his sentence. The sole question which arises on the appeal is whether the minimum period of imprisonment is too long. But before we address that question, it is necessary to discuss briefly:
(a)The factual background;
(b)Sections 103 and 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002; and
(c)The Judge’s sentencing remarks.

Factual background
[4] The appellant and Liam went to court together on 24 August in the same van and there was some discussion between them on that trip. As a result of that discussion, and some events which occurred at court, the appellant formed the erroneous belief that Liam was to give evidence against him in relation to the April 2006 offending. The appellant was later to say to a police officer that while he was at court on 24 August 2006 he decided to kill Liam.
[5] On the way back to the remand prison, the appellant, Liam and a third man were in the same compartment. In the course of the journey, the appellant suggested that he and Liam should attempt to escape from the van. The two of them took turns trying to kick open the emergency escape hatch located in the roof of the van. When these attempts were unsuccessful, the appellant proposed that Liam should pretend to have an epileptic fit or seizure to provide an excuse to require the guards to stop the van and thus an opportunity…

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 R v Baker

Details

AGLC: R v Baker [2007] NZCA 277
Case: [2007] NZCA 277
Decision Date: 5 July 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, George Charlie Baker, was convicted of the murder of Liam Ashley, who he killed in a prison van. Baker was already in custody on charges of aggravated robbery, wounding with intent, and threatening to kill. The sentencing judge, Harrison J, imposed a life sentence with a minimum period of imprisonment of 18 years. Baker appealed against the length of the minimum period of imprisonment. The appeal was dismissed. The court found that the brutality, depravity, and cruelty of the murder, the appellant’s motivation to avoid prosecution for another charge, and the vulnerability of the victim all warranted the minimum period of imprisonment imposed by the sentencing judge. The court also found that the discount for Baker’s early guilty plea was appropriate. The court held that the sentence was proportionate and did not constitute an error of law.

Orders