R v Beazley - [2016] NZHC 811

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2015-088-000361 [2016] NZHC 811

THE QUEEN

v

PHILLIP JAMES BEAZLEY

Hearing: 27 April 2016

Appearances:

M B Smith and M Jarmin-Taylor for Crown
A Fairley and A M Harvey for Prisoner

Judgment:

27 April 2016

SENTENCE OF KEANE J

Solicitors / Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Whangarei
Thomson Wilson, Whangarei

R v BEAZLEY [2016] NZHC 811 [27 April 2016]

[1] Phillip Beazley, you appear for sentence for the manslaughter of your youngest child, your son Leonard Kingi, on 26 January 2015 at your home here in Whangarei, where he was also living.

[2] Initially you were charged with your son’s murder, an offence you denied because you contended that you had not intended to kill him and had acted out of self defence. You were to go to trial on 29 February this year. On 18 February however, you pleaded guilty to the alternative charge you then faced, manslaughter, and you were convicted of that lesser offence.

[3] Today, after I have sentenced you for manslaughter, relying on the agreed statement of facts, the Crown will offer no evidence on the murder charge and I will dismiss it. I begin with what you accept were the circumstances of your offence.

Offence

[4] On the evening of 25 January 2015, at about 6 pm, a cousin of yours and a friend of his came to your home. They had already been drinking elsewhere and they brought with them a full bottle of Coruba Rum, a small amount of whiskey, and most of an 18 bottle box of Lion Red beer. You and they began drinking together on your outside deck.

[5] You were joined at various times by your partner, your daughter and your son. Your daughter went to bed at about 8.15 pm. Your cousin and his friend left around 10-11 pm, when most of the alcohol they had brought had gone. Your partner went to bed at 10.30 pm. That left you and your son alone on the deck.

[6] Towards midnight it seems your daughter, who slept on the opposite side of the house, woke when she heard you and your son arguing in the driveway. She told you both to stop and, when you both ignored her, she woke your partner who was asleep in a nearby bedroom.

[7] From the lounge your partner looked out onto the driveway. She saw your son directly in front of her. He first looked back at her, and then without speaking fell face down to the ground. She then saw you to her right with blood over your

face, standing beside your son. You then knelt next to him obviously upset. She asked you what you had done. You said “you killed him”. She had your daughter call an ambulance.

[8] You stood up and walked out to the road but shortly after you returned and knelt by your son and embraced him. When the Police arrived they found you sitting next to…

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 [2016] NZHC 811
Case: [2016] NZHC 811
Decision Date: 27 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Phillip James Beazley was convicted of manslaughter for the death of his son, Leonard Kingi, during an altercation on 26 January 2015. Initially charged with murder, Beazley later pleaded guilty to manslaughter after the pre-trial issues were resolved. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for the manslaughter charge and whether any aggravating or mitigating factors should be considered. The Crown argued for a starting point of four and a half to five years, considering the history of violence between Beazley and his son, while Beazley's counsel proposed a starting point of four to four and a half years. The court ultimately decided on a starting point of six years, taking into account the defensive nature of Beazley's actions and the fatal wound inflicted.

The court also considered various aggravating and mitigating factors. The Crown suggested an uplift for the history of violence between Beazley and his son, but the court found that this could not be considered as more than a contextual feature of their relationship. Beazley's extensive criminal history, mostly for driving offences, dishonesty, and low-level violence, was not deemed sufficient for a definite uplift. However, the court did acknowledge Beazley's remorse, granting a 20% discount, and an additional discount for his late plea, resulting in a final sentence of four years' imprisonment. The court dismissed the murder charge as the Crown offered no evidence, and Beazley was given a written warning regarding future violent offences.

Orders