Legal Research
Cases
R v Beattie

R v Beattie

Case [2019] NZHC 3108 27 November 2019

Criminal Liability

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2018-088-002684

[2019] NZHC 3108

THE QUEEN

v

JULIETA HURENGA BEATTIE

Hearing: 27 November 2019

Counsel:

M B Smith for Crown

C S Cull & M L Russell for Defendant

Sentence:

27 November 2019

SENTENCE OF PAUL DAVISON J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Whangarei

R v BEATTIE [2019] NZHC 3108 [27 November 2019]

Introduction

[1] Julieta Beattie, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of your partner, Richard Bristow, at Moerewa on 15 September 2018.1

Mr Bristow’s Death

[2] You and Mr Bristow had been in what was sometimes a volatile relationship for approximately two years at the time of his death. You usually spent your weekends staying with Mr Bristow at his house in Moerewa.

[3] On the night of Saturday, 15 September 2018, you and Mr Bristow were together at his address. You had both been consuming alcohol over the course of the evening while attending a social function. An argument broke out between you as you were on your way home, and upon arriving back at Mr Bristow’s house he told you to take your car, and take your children, and leave his address.

[4] Your family, who were next door, intervened in an attempt to de-escalate the situation. They told you that you should leave and encouraged you to go with them. You refused to leave and your family attempted to physically pull you away.

[5] However you managed to break free and run back to Mr Bristow’s house. He closed the front door and locked you outside. You then broke the glass panelling of his door. Mr Bristow retaliated by striking you in the face, causing your nose to bleed profusely.

[6] You then went out to your car which was parked on his front lawn. Mr Bristow came out to the vehicle where you were seated and the two of you continued arguing through the open car window. Your family, having seen that the dispute between you and Mr Bristow had become violent, threatened to call the police.

[7] At some point, you got out of the car and told Mr Bristow “I’m going to stab you.” You then ran inside his house, took a boning knife from the kitchen, and returned outside. You then began brandishing the knife at Mr Bristow, holding it in front of

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 171 and 177 (maximum penalty life imprisonment).

you and waving it around and saying, “I’m going to fucken stab him”, “you don’t hit me”, “you hit me and I’ll stab you”, and “I’m gonna stab you”.

[8] Mr Bristow responded by saying “go on, fuck you, you can fuck off”, and that you were “just like your son”; whom he described using a racial epithet.

[9] A member of your family bravely positioned them-self between you and Mr Bristow in an attempt to stop any repetition of violence. You told them to get…

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 Beattie

Details

AGLC: R v Beattie [2019] NZHC 3108
Case: [2019] NZHC 3108
Decision Date: 27 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Beattie involved the sentencing of Julieta Beattie for the manslaughter of Richard Bristow. The Court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, considering the purposes and principles of sentencing, as well as the aggravating and mitigating features of the offending. The Court found that the appropriate starting point for the sentence was five years' imprisonment, taking into account the use of a weapon, the level of violence, and the context of the offending. The Court then applied discounts for factors personal to the offender, including her previous good character, remorse, and the causal nexus between her background and her offending. A further discount was applied for the guilty plea, resulting in a final sentence of three years' imprisonment, with eligibility for parole after serving one-third of the sentence. The Court declined to impose an additional minimum period of imprisonment, finding that it was not necessary to meet the relevant statutory purposes.

Orders