R v Beckett - [2021] NZHC 3118

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CRI-2020-042-00131

[2021] NZHC 3118

THE QUEEN

v

TRISTIAN CECIEL BECKETT

Hearing: 16 November 2021

Appearances:

A R Goodison for the Crown E Riddell for the Defendant

Sentence:

16 November 2021

SENTENCING NOTES OF GRICE J

Introduction

[1] Tēnā koe Mr Beckett. You may be seated while I make my remarks as I intend to explain how I reached the sentence that I do in the end. I will ask you to stand at the end.

[2] Mr Beckett, you are being sentenced for offences against your partner, or your then partner. You pleaded guilty to:

(a)threatening to do grievous bodily harm (GBH);1

1 Crimes Act1961, s 306: maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.

R v BECKETT [2021] NZHC 3118 [16 November 2021]

(b)threating to kill;2

(c)committing a threatening act;3

(d)assault with intent to injure;4 and

(e)strangulation.5

[3] I will spend some time setting out the reasons for the sentence I impose. The written sentence notes will be sent to you in due course. They will be edited for grammar and flow, but they will be substantially what I say today.

Background

Factual background

[4] Mr Beckett, you and the complainant had been in a relationship for about six months and she was 13 weeks pregnant with your son.

[5] On 20 April 2020, you threatened to cut open her stomach and take out the child. That gave rise to the threatening to do GBH charge.

[6] All the other charges arose on 24 May 2020. You were on bail for that earlier offending and also serving a sentence. You had consumed alcohol that day and wanted to get some of your things that were at the complainant’s house, which had been your house earlier as well. After she said she would drop them off to you the next day, as she had finished work late and was tired, you became enraged because you thought she was with another male. You began walking to the address and you text multiple abusive messages, including one saying “IMA gonna kill him U”, “IMA kill him an U” and “Ur dead”. These gave rise to the charges of threatening to kill. She responded that she would call the police. She locked up the house and went to bed, believing you were bluffing. Then she woke up at night and saw you walking into her bedroom.

2      Section 306: maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 308(a): maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment.
4      Section 193: maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment.
5      Section 189A(b): maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.

[7] The threatening act charge arose from your taking the complainant’s phone and knife, which were beside the bed. You stabbed the knife into the wall a metre above the complainant’s head with such force, you bent the knife. She ran into the lounge and as she tried to get out the backdoor, you grabbed her…

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 Beckett

Details

AGLC: R v Beckett [2021] NZHC 3118
Case: [2021] NZHC 3118
Decision Date: 16 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Beckett was heard and decided on 16 November 2021. The defendant, Tristian Beckett, was being sentenced for multiple offences against his partner, including threatening to do grievous bodily harm, threatening to kill, committing a threatening act, assault with intent to injure, and strangulation. The legal issues the court had to decide included determining an appropriate starting point for the sentence, considering aggravating and mitigating factors, and deciding on the overall sentence in line with the purposes and principles of sentencing.

The court began by setting a starting point of three years and nine months, considering the severity of the offences, particularly the strangulation, which occurred in the context of a domestic relationship and involved multiple threats to kill over an extended period. The court noted the prolonged period of the offending, the controlling nature of the physical violence, and the complainant's vulnerability due to her pregnancy. While the offending was serious, the court found it less severe than in some comparable cases, particularly where the complainant lost consciousness.

The court then considered personal factors, including the defendant's background of trauma, substance abuse, and mental health issues, which were seen as causative factors for the offending. The court also considered the defendant's efforts towards rehabilitation and his motivation to maintain a relationship with his son. After evaluating these factors, the court decided on a discount of 20% for personal circumstances, 3% for time spent on electronically-monitored bail, 10% for the late guilty plea, and 1% for remorse.

In conclusion, the court sentenced Tristian Beckett to a term of 29 months' imprisonment, taking into account the need for deterrence, denunciation, and public interest, while also considering the least restrictive sentence appropriate in the circumstances.

Orders