Legal Research
Cases
R v Betteridge

R v Betteridge

Case [2019] NZHC 1480 26 June 2019

Conspiracy

Misconduct in respect of human remains

Sentencing

Guilty Plea

Personal Circumstances

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI 2018-019-4429

[2019] NZHC 1480

THE QUEEN

v

KYRA BETTERIDGE

Hearing: 26 June 2019

Appearances:

J Foster for Crown S Tait for Defendant

Judgment:

26 June 2019

SENTENCING NOTES OF JAGOSE J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Almao Douch, Hamilton
S Tait, Barrister, Barrister, Auckland

R v BETTERIDGE [2019] NZHC 1480 [26 June 2019]

[1] Ms Betteridge, you come before me for sentencing, having pleaded guilty to charges of conspiring to defeat justice,1 and misconduct in respect of human remains.2

[2] You pleaded guilty shortly after receiving a sentence indication from Davison J on 7 May this year.3 His Honour indicated a sentence of no more than 20 and a half months’ imprisonment was likely, with the possibility of home detention. I am not bound by the Judge’s indication,4 but I must decide your sentence for myself.

The offending

[3] The charges against you arise out of the aftermath of the killing of Mitchell Paterson early on 12 July 2018. Some co-offenders face similar charges to you, while others face the principal charges of murder, manslaughter and kidnapping.

[4] After Mr Paterson’s death, in which it is not alleged you were involved, a plan was formulated for you and two others to move his body elsewhere by car and then set them on fire. Three of your co-offenders rolled up Mr Paterson’s body in a tarpaulin, and put it in the back of a vehicle and covered in rubbish and car parts to avoid detection. Someone driving the vehicle carrying Mr Paterson’s body left the address shortly after 6.30 in the morning on 12 July 2018.

[5] You left shortly afterwards in another car with a co-offender. You filled two containers at a petrol station, to use in setting fire to Mr Paterson’s body and the vehicle he had been in. The three of you then met up and travelled in convoy around the Waikato for the rest of the day, Mr Paterson’s body remaining inside the vehicle.

[6] During the afternoon, you and one of your co-offenders decided to change how to dispose of the body. The third person with you disagreed, and returned to Hamilton. Another co-offender, Mr Green, was then contacted in the early hours of 13 July 2018 to assist. Mr Green came to meet you both. After some discussion, the three of you agreed to dispose of Mr Paterson’s body at McLaren Falls, arriving there at around

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 116. Maximum term of imprisonment is seven years.
2      Section 150(b). Maximum term of imprisonment is two years.
3      R v Betteridge [2019] NZHC 999.
4      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 116(3).

4am. The other two removed Mr Paterson’s tarpaulin-wrapped body from the back of the vehicle and threw it over a bridge railing into the water below. The three of you then discussed how to dispose of the vehicle that had carried Mr Paterson’s body. Mr Green volunteered…

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 Betteridge

Details

AGLC: R v Betteridge [2019] NZHC 1480
Case: [2019] NZHC 1480
Decision Date: 26 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand at Hamilton, Kyra Betteridge was sentenced on charges of conspiring to defeat justice and misconduct in respect of human remains. The charges stem from the disposal of the body of Mitchell Paterson, a crime for which other co-offenders face more severe charges. Betteridge pleaded guilty after receiving a sentence indication from another judge, who had suggested a likely sentence of no more than 20 and a half months' imprisonment, with the possibility of home detention. The sentencing judge, Jagose J, was not bound by the previous indication but had to decide on the sentence independently.

The legal issues in this case involved determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the nature of the offences, the defendant's personal circumstances, and the effect of her guilty plea. The court had to establish a starting point for the sentence based on the severity of the crimes and then adjust it according to mitigating or aggravating factors. Betteridge's potential for rehabilitation and her willingness to participate in rehabilitative measures were also considered.

The court adopted a starting point of two and a half years, based on the gravity of the crimes and their potential impact on the victims and the community. The defendant's personal circumstances, including her limited criminal history, substance abuse issues, and lack of remorse, were reviewed but did not warrant any reduction in the starting point. The court awarded credit for the time Betteridge had spent on electronically monitored bail, reducing the sentence by two months. After applying the 25% discount for her guilty plea, the court sentenced Betteridge to 21 months' imprisonment for the charge of conspiring to defeat justice and six months' imprisonment for the charge of misconduct in respect of human remains, to be served concurrently. The court determined that imprisonment was the least restrictive sentence in this case due to Betteridge's unwillingness to engage in rehabilitative measures.

Orders