R v Beca - [2013] NZHC 3279

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

CRI-2012-042-000741 [2013] NZHC 3279

THE QUEEN

v

MICHAEL WILLIAM BECA

Counsel: J M Webber and S K O'Donoghue for Crown
G H Nation for Prisoner

Sentence: 10 December 2013

NOTES ON SENTENCE OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Mr Beca, on 16 October 2013 you pleaded guilty to murdering Lisa Corbett. You entered that plea after Ronald Young J twice gave you a sentence indication. You accepted the sentence indication, however you entered your plea after the sentence indication had expired. The indication was that you would be sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 14 to 15 years if you pleaded guilty to Ms Corbett’s murder.

[2] The Crown submits that I should sentence you at the top of the range proposed in the sentence indication given by Ronald Young J. In his very comprehensive and very helpful submissions Mr Nation urges me to sentence you to
life imprisonment with a minimum period of 14 years’ imprisonment.

R v BECA [2013] NZHC 3279 [10 December 2013]

[3] In sentencing you, I shall:

(1) explain your offending;

(2) explain your personal circumstances;

(3)explain the requirements for a 17 year minimum period of imprisonment for murder;

(4) explain the starting point that I am going to use when sentencing you; (5) make adjustments to that starting point to reflect:
(a) your guilty plea; and

(b) your personality disorder, and

(6) explain your end sentence.

Your offending

[4] You and Ms Corbett had a relationship for approximately 12 months. To use your term the relationship was “less than a full domestic relationship”. During the final stages of your relationship with Ms Corbett, you became convinced she was supplying information to various gangs about you. You became concerned that you were at risk of being killed because of the information which you believe Ms Corbett was supplying about you to gangs. You therefore decided to kill Ms Corbett.

[5] You contemplated murdering Ms Corbett over a number of days. Your planning included purchasing of equipment to assist with your crime. You purchased cable ties, rope, a large syringe and you crushed up a number of codeine tablets. You thought about a number of methods of killing Ms Corbett. Ultimately you decided that strangulation would be the most effective way of murdering her.

[6] On 6 March 2012 you drove to Nelson and stayed with Ms Corbett and her five year old daughter. On 8 March 2012 you returned to Nelson and persuaded Ms Corbett and her daughter to go with you to Murchison in your van. You appear to have spent the next four nights at a motel in Murchison with Ms Corbett and her daughter.

[7] On 12 March 2012 you drove Ms Corbett and her daughter to a remote bush road in the Spooners Range. You persuaded Ms Corbett that she should allow you to tie her up so as to feign an act of kidnapping. You securely tied…

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 Beca

Details

AGLC: R v Beca [2013] NZHC 3279
Case: [2013] NZHC 3279
Decision Date: 10 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Nelson Registry, the case of R v Beca involved Michael William Beca, who pleaded guilty to the murder of Lisa Corbett. The sentencing hearing took place on 10 December 2013. The primary legal issue was determining the appropriate sentence for Beca, considering his guilty plea, personality disorder, and the nature of the crime. The court had to balance the gravity of the offence against mitigating factors to arrive at a just and appropriate sentence.

The court began by detailing Beca's offending, which involved meticulously planning the murder over several days. Beca purchased specific items such as cable ties, rope, a syringe, and crushed codeine tablets to facilitate the crime. He also engaged in a ruse to feign a kidnapping, which further underscored the premeditation and callousness of the act. The murder was carried out in the presence of Corbett's five-year-old daughter, adding to the brutality and insensitivity of the crime.

In reaching a sentence, the court considered the statutory requirement for a minimum 17-year imprisonment period in cases involving calculated or lengthy planning and high degrees of brutality, cruelty, depravity, or callousness. The court found these elements present in Beca's case. However, after applying discounts for Beca's guilty plea and his personality disorder, the court determined that a 15-year minimum period of imprisonment was appropriate. This sentence balanced the need for deterrence and denunciation with the recognition of mitigating factors.

The final orders of the court were that Beca would be sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of 15 years for the murder of Lisa Corbett. Beca must serve at least 15 years before being eligible for parole. The Parole Board will assess his risk of reoffending, and significant changes in this risk will be necessary before parole consideration.

Orders