R v Benbow - [2024] NZHC 451

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2019-009-8869

[2024] NZHC 451

THE KING

v

DAVID CHARLES BENBOW

Hearing: 5 March 2024

Appearances:

B Hawes and C J Boshier for Crown K J Gray and K J Basire for Defendant

Judgment:

5 March 2024

SENTENCING REMARKS OF EATON J

R v BENBOW [2024] NZHC 451 [5 March 2024]

Introduction

[1] David Charles Benbow, you appear for sentencing having been found guilty by a jury of your peers of the murder of Michael McGrath.

[2] The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment. Ms Gray, on your behalf, appropriately concedes that I must today sentence you to life imprisonment and that will be the sentence I shortly impose. What I must determine is how much of that life sentence you must serve before being eligible to apply for early release on parole. That is what is called the minimum period of imprisonment, I will refer to it as the MPI.

[3] I acknowledge the family and friends of Michael McGrath who are in Court today. I particularly thank those who have, this morning, read their victim impact statements and I will address those in a little bit more detail shortly.

[4] I also acknowledge the presence in Court, Mr Benbow, of your own family, your supporters and particularly your mother who I know has been present throughout both of your trials.

[5] Many of those who are present in Court today will be very familiar with the facts of your offending, and particularly those who sat through almost 16 weeks of trial in 2023. But sentencing is a public function, and it is important, within this public setting, that I set out the facts upon which you are to be sentenced. Mr Benbow, I am very conscious that you maintain your innocence. But, as has been acknowledged by your counsel, you understand that I must sentence you in accordance with the verdict of the jury.

[6] Inevitably, as I summarise the facts this morning, I will make factual findings that I consider to be consistent with the jury’s verdict. Those are facts which will ultimately inform my decision as to the appropriate MPI.

Facts

[7] As at early 2017, Mr Benbow, you were a lifelong friend of Michael McGrath. Growing up, you were very close to his family. In your younger days you called his mother “Mum”. Your friendship with Mr McGrath continued after you commenced a relationship with Joanna Green and had your daughters. You and Ms Green had a particularly close relationship with Mr McGrath. He was willing and comfortable to share with you his mental health struggles at a time he was diagnosed with anxiety and a depressive disorder in 2010.

[8] Over the years, you engaged Mr McGrath to undertake some minor and, indeed, some more major building projects at your family home. That included the very impressive playhouse that he built for you at Candys Road and…

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 Benbow

Details

AGLC: R v Benbow [2024] NZHC 451
Case: [2024] NZHC 451
Decision Date: 5 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

David Charles Benbow was found guilty by a jury of murdering Michael McGrath. The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment, with the High Court required to determine the minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) before Benbow becomes eligible for parole. The court acknowledged the family and friends of Michael McGrath who were present and heard victim impact statements. Benbow maintained his innocence but the court had to sentence him based on the jury's verdict. The court found that the murder was meticulously planned over several days, with Benbow luring McGrath to his property under false pretences to carry out the killing. Benbow's planning included disposing of the body and evidence, and his failure to provide information to police. The court considered the aggravating factors of the offence, including the level of planning and premeditation, callousness in disposing of the body, concealing evidence, use of a lethal weapon, breach of trust, and significant harm caused to McGrath's family. The court found that the offence engaged Section 104 of the Sentencing Act, requiring a minimum period of 17 years' imprisonment unless it would be manifestly unjust. The court determined that a 17-year MPI was not manifestly unjust, considering the seriousness of the offending and the legislative policy behind the minimum term. Benbow was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of 17 years.

Orders