Legal Research
Cases
R v Beazley

R v Beazley

Case [2019] NZHC 672 2 April 2019

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-092-013613

[2019] NZHC 672

THE QUEEN

v

EPHRAIM JOSEPH BEAZLEY

Hearing: 2 April 2019

Appearances:

C Robertson and J Toebes for the Crown

D Wallwork and D Wang for the Defendant

Judgment:

2 April 2019

SENTENCING NOTES OF MOORE J

R v BEAZLEY [2019] NZHC 672 [2 April 2019]

Introduction

[1] Ephraim Beazley, at the age of 33, having never been in trouble with the Police before, you appear before me to be sentenced for murder. You pleaded guilty on 6 March 2019.

[2]As you will know, the maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.

[3] In these sentencing remarks I shall start first with the facts. Then I shall discuss how the law works and then whether life imprisonment should be imposed. If so, I will consider whether I should also impose a minimum term of imprisonment or MPI.

The facts

[4] What you did, and what led up to what you did, is obviously well-known to you. But because sentencing is a quintessentially public function and because it must be undertaken in public and in an open Courtroom such as this, I must set out those facts.

[5] The young woman you killed was Xi Wang. She was your estranged wife and the mother of your child.

[6] You met in November 2014 and a relationship quickly developed. You married six months later in May 2015. You and Ms Wang moved to Rotorua where you had a job as a farm hand.

[7] Your relationship with Ms Wang lasted only until September of that year. It was acrimonious. Shortly after it finished Ms Wang discovered she was pregnant with your child. She gave birth to your son on 8 May 2016.

[8] Your contact with Ms Wang and your new son was limited. You saw Ms Wang a couple of times before the baby was born. You were in Auckland for the birth but two days after the baby was born Ms Wang asked you to leave following an unpleasant confrontation at the hospital.

[9] From that time on you had no contact with your son. You had some limited contact with Ms Wang through Facebook or via text messages. This was because Ms Wang had left her iPad at your home.

[10] Within a relatively short time of your estrangement you began to harbour an increasing resentment towards Ms Wang, partly because you were required to pay child support.

[11] From that point you began to feel that everything in your life was spiralling downwards. You contemplated suicide but decided against it. You also began to contemplate killing Ms Wang.

[12] It was through Ms Wang’s iPad that you learned that she was living at an address in Flatbush.

[13] On Monday, 10 December 2018 you decided that you had “had enough”. You decided you would kill Ms Wang. You got up early that morning, as you usually did.…

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 Beazley

Details

AGLC: R v Beazley [2019] NZHC 672
Case: [2019] NZHC 672
Decision Date: 2 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ephraim Joseph Beazley was sentenced by the High Court of New Zealand for the murder of his estranged wife, Xi Wang. Beazley, who had no prior criminal record, pleaded guilty to the charge of murder. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence, specifically whether life imprisonment should be imposed and, if so, the length of any minimum period of imprisonment (MPI). The court had to consider whether any of the aggravating factors listed in Section 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002 were present, which would necessitate an MPI of at least 17 years. The court found that four of these factors were present: calculated or lengthy planning, unlawful entry into a dwelling house, high level of brutality, cruelty, depravity, or callousness, and particular vulnerability of the victim. Given these factors, the court determined that an MPI of 17 years was appropriate, reduced slightly from 18 years and six months due to Beazley's early guilty plea.

In reaching its decision, the court detailed the brutal nature of the crime, noting that Beazley had meticulously planned the murder over several years, targeting his victim's vital areas with a sharpened knife. The attack occurred in the victim's home, where she felt entitled to safety, and Beazley showed a high level of brutality and callousness, continuing the assault despite the presence of his young son. Although Beazley's defence argued for some mitigating factors, such as his early guilty plea and the stressed relationship with the victim, the court found these insufficient to significantly reduce the sentence. Ultimately, the court sentenced Beazley to life imprisonment with an MPI of 17 years, reflecting the heinous nature of the crime and the need for severe punishment and deterrence.

Orders