R v Bevan - [2012] NZHC 2969

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI-2011-031-739 [2012] NZHC 2969

THE QUEEN

v

TUAINE LLEWELLYN BEVAN

Hearing: 8 November 2012

Counsel: B Vanderkolk for the Crown
C Stevenson for Tuaine Bevan

Sentence: 8 November 2012

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MALLON J

Introduction

[1] Mr Bevan, you need to stand up now. You are here for sentencing following your conviction at trial of the manslaughter of your partner, Stacey Lake.1 The jury acquitted you on the charge of murder.

[2] You are also to be sentenced on a charge of possession of cannabis for sale2 and unlawful possession of a firearm.3 You had earlier pleaded guilty to those charges.

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 150A and 177.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(f) and 6(2)(c).
3      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1)(b).

R v BEVAN HC PMN CRI-2011-031-739 [8 November 2012]

Circumstances of offending

Manslaughter

[3] At about 4pm on 8 May 2011, you pointed a sawn off rifle at Stacey’s head while she lay on the bed in the bedroom of the house you shared. When you pulled the trigger the muzzle of the rifle was at close range. The evidence was that it was pointed somewhere between 5 to 20 centimetres, and most likely 10 centimetres, from Stacey’s head. The rifle was discharged and Stacey suffered a single gunshot wound to her left temple from which she later died. The jury verdict means that they accepted as a reasonable possibility that you thought the gun was safe because you had removed the magazine.

[4] Stacey Lake was aged just 23 years at the time she died. She was the mother of two children, then aged three and five years old. Her five year old son was in the house, in an adjoining room, when you shot her. You had met Stacey at a New Year’s Eve party at the end of 2006 and had been in a relationship with her since then. You are the father of the three year old. You and Stacey had moved into the house together some months before her death.

[5] The background to this shocking end to Stacey’s life, was a domestic dispute between the two of you which began on Thursday 5 May 2011. Stacey had been out with her friends during the day and planned to go out with them that evening to a local pub where there was a “free roll” for poker. You objected to this plan and told her she needed to be home to look after the children that evening. You went out in the evening for a period and when you came back Stacey had been drinking wine. An argument developed between the two of you, in the course of which you gave Stacey a black eye.

[6] Stacey was very upset by this. In the morning Ms Lake expected you to be apologetic but you were not. You were yelling at the children and this upset her more. She told 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 Bevan

Details

AGLC: R v Bevan [2012] NZHC 2969
Case: [2012] NZHC 2969
Decision Date: 8 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Tuaine Llewellyn Bevan, was convicted of manslaughter, possession of cannabis for sale, and unlawful possession of a firearm. The court had to decide the appropriate starting point and the final sentence for each charge. For the manslaughter charge, the court considered the recklessness and the aggravating factors, such as the use of a weapon and the attack on a vulnerable victim. The court found that the manslaughter charge warranted a starting point of seven to eight years' imprisonment. The court also took into account the defendant's remorse, previous convictions, and the need for individual deterrence. For the cannabis possession charge, the court considered the element of commerciality and the totality principle, and decided on a starting point of two years and two years and six months' imprisonment. For the unlawful possession of firearm charge, the court decided on a concurrent sentence of nine months' imprisonment. Finally, the court imposed a first strike warning on the defendant for any further serious violent offence.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant be sentenced to a total of six years and eight months' imprisonment, consisting of five years and eight months' imprisonment for manslaughter (with a minimum period of imprisonment of three years), one year's imprisonment for cannabis possession (cumulative on the manslaughter charge), and nine months' imprisonment for unlawful possession of a firearm (concurrent). The court also issued a first strike warning to the defendant.

Orders