R v Beerens - [2018] NZHC 2669

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2018-009-720

[2018] NZHC 2669

THE QUEEN

v

VIRGINIA MARIA BEERENS

Hearing: 16 October 2018

Appearances:

C Lange for Crown

J Lucas for Defendant

Judgment:

16 October 2018

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MANDER J

Introduction

[1] Ms Beerens, you are for sentence today on a charge of attempted murder. You pleaded guilty after I provided a sentence indication on 8 August this year.1 I now need to formally record that you are convicted on that charge.

Three strikes warning

[2] Because you have been convicted on a charge of attempted murder you are now subject to the ‘three strikes’ law. The Sentencing Act requires me to give you a warning of what the consequences will be should you commit another serious violent

1 R v Beerens [2018] NZHC 2014.

R v BEERENS [2018] NZHC 2669 [16 October 2018]

offence. You will also be provided with the warning in writing, along with a list of these serious violent offences.

[3] The warning is this: If you are convicted of any one or more serious violent offence, other than murder, committed after this warning and if a Judge imposes a sentence of imprisonment, then you will serve that sentence without parole or early release. If you are convicted of murder committed after this warning, then you must be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole unless it would be manifestly unjust to do so. In that event, the Judge must sentence you to a minimum term of imprisonment.

The offending

[4] I turn now to the circumstances of your offending for which you are for sentence this morning. Prior to the offending you were in a relationship with the victim, Mr Han. You separated in mid-2017, and at the time of the offending he had a new partner. On the morning of 22 January of this year, you were intoxicated and formed an intention to kill him.

[5] You went to his place of work to make sure he was not home, and when you saw his car there you drove to his house. When you arrived, you were let in by his flatmate who knew who you were from the previous relationship with Mr Han. You went into Mr Han’s room, selected a number of items of his property that had special meaning to him, such as notes and gifts from his new partner, and set them alight on his bed with a cigarette lighter you found in the room. Before leaving the address and after watching the fire in Mr Han’s room take hold, you took a knife which you knew Mr Han regularly sharpened.

[6] Later in the day you again went to Mr Han’s place of work, hoping that he had been alerted to the fire and gone home. After establishing that he had left work for home, you returned to his address. Members of the Fire Service were extinguishing the fire you…

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 Beerens

Details

AGLC: R v Beerens [2018] NZHC 2669
Case: [2018] NZHC 2669
Decision Date: 16 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Manderson J was tasked with sentencing Ms Virginia Maria Beerens, who had pleaded guilty to a charge of attempted murder. The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing in light of the absence of a guideline for attempted murder, the application of any discounts for personal factors, and the necessity of imposing a minimum period of imprisonment. The court considered the premeditation of the offence, the use of a weapon, the infliction of a near-fatal injury, and the impact on the victim, along with personal mitigating factors such as alcohol dependence and a difficult background.

Manderson J adopted an eight-year starting point, based on comparable cases where offenders had premeditated and executed a single, deliberate act with a weapon. A five percent discount was applied to account for Ms Beerens' personal circumstances, including her alcohol dependency and difficult upbringing. Although Ms Beerens expressed remorse, the court did not further reduce the sentence for this reason, considering her actions to be premeditated and deliberate. A 20 percent discount was applied for the guilty plea, taking into account the delay in entering the plea due to the need for a psychiatric evaluation. The court ultimately sentenced Ms Beerens to six years' imprisonment, without imposing a minimum period of imprisonment as it deemed the sentence sufficient for accountability, deterrence, and community protection.

Orders