R v Boulter - [2013] NZHC 2793

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

CRI 2012-006-785 [2013] NZHC 2793

THE QUEEN

v

WARREN LESLIE BOULTER

Hearing: 25 October 2013

Counsel: M A O'Donoghue and J M Webber for Crown
M Hardy-Jones for Accused

Sentence: 25 October 2013

SENTENCE OF RONALD YOUNG J

[1] Mr Boulter you are now for sentence having been found guilty by a jury of murder. A brief summary of the facts is as follows.

[2] You and Ms Wilkinson-Foley had been in a relationship. You had obtained further employment in Blenheim and you would return from time to time to the Nelson area where she lived. Eventually she decided that she no longer wanted to continue the relationship with you. She told you this on several occasions and then finally took some clothing and other household items over to you in Blenheim to make it clear to you the relationship was at an end.

[3] But you did not accept the relationship was over. You sent her texts and contacted her regularly to try and convince her to continue the relationship. But it is
clear from her perspective the relationship was at an end and she wanted it finished.

R v BOULTER [2013] NZHC 2793 [25 October 2013]

[4] You still had some clothing at her house and she arranged for you to come and pick it up on the day of the murder. When you arrived there shortly afterwards you were physically violent towards her punching her or striking her in some way in the face. You knocked her to the ground. You then went to the kitchen and chose one knife and rejected it. You chose another knife. You returned with that knife to the kitchen where Ms Wilkinson-Foley was lying on the ground. You stabbed her repeatedly and violently in the neck. You caused her severe injuries. She bled to death.

[5] As she must have lay dying, you showered, changed your clothes and took the clothing that no doubt had her blood on it and left the house. You would have known that she would have slowly bleeding to death. You showed no interest in her and then you tried to disguise the killing and your involvement. But eventually you were arrested and stood trial. You denied that you were the killer but the evidence overwhelmingly said that you were.

[6] I accept it is unlikely that you went to the house intending to kill Ms Wilkinson-Foley. You were present at the house by her invitation. But after you assaulted her it is clear to me that you were determined to kill her. The way in which the knife was used, stabbing her in the neck in a violent way illustrated the ferocity of your attack. This was a callous brutal killing of a woman you shortly before had a relationship with and you claimed to have loved.

[7] After the killing to add to the humiliation of the events, you stole jewellery belonging to the complainant…

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 Boulter

Details

AGLC: R v Boulter [2013] NZHC 2793
Case: [2013] NZHC 2793
Decision Date: 25 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of The Queen versus Warren Leslie Boulter involved a trial for murder, with the defendant found guilty by a jury. The victim, Ms Wilkinson-Foley, had ended her relationship with the defendant, but he persisted in contact and ultimately assaulted her, leading to her death from multiple stab wounds. The defendant, after the incident, attempted to disguise his involvement and showed no remorse, indicating a callous and brutal nature of the crime. The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate sentence, considering factors such as the premeditation of the attack, the violence used, and the defendant’s history of violent reactions when relationships ended.

The court deliberated on the defendant’s lack of remorse and his high risk of reoffending, alongside the Crown's submission for a minimum imprisonment period of 12 to 13 years. The defence argued against premeditation and suggested an 11 to 13-year sentence range. Ultimately, the court found that while the defendant may not have intended to kill Ms Wilkinson-Foley initially, his actions post-assault indicated a clear intent to kill. The judge imposed a life sentence, with a minimum non-parole period of 13 and a half years, reflecting the severity of the crime and the defendant’s dangerous propensity towards women. The sentence underscored the devastating impact on the victim's family and the necessity of preventing the defendant from posing a risk to others in the future.

Orders