R v Bracken - [2012] NZHC 3158

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI 2011-027-000666 [2012] NZHC 3158

THE QUEEN

v

WAYNE JAMES BRACKEN

Hearing: 23 November 2012

Appearances: M Smith and B O'Connor for the Crown
Prisoner in Person

Judgment: 23 November 2012

SENTENCING NOTES OF WYLIE J

Distribution:
M Smith: michaels@mwis.co.nz
B O’Connor: bernadetteo@mwis.co.nz
G Gotlieb: gary@gotlieb.co.nz
J Krebs: jk@shakespearechambers.co.nz

R V BRACKEN HC WHA CRI 2011-027-000666 [23 November 2012]

[1] Mr Bracken, you may sit until I ask you to stand.

[2] Mr Bracken, on 28 September 2012, after a seven-week trial, a jury found you guilty of kidnapping Mr Jack Davis, and of then going on to murder him. The jury also found you guilty of aggravated robbery, assault with intent to injure and burglary. The victims of these three offences were a Mr Bradley Johns and his partner, Ms Melissa Cochrane.

[3] Pursuant to the Crimes Act 1961, murder carries a mandatory penalty of life imprisonment, except in limited circumstances. I am also required to consider the minimum term of imprisonment to impose on you, and I deal with this issue shortly. Kidnapping carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. So does aggravated robbery. Assault with intent to injure carries a maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment and burglary carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.

Relevant Facts

[4] I start with the most serious offending, the kidnapping and the murder.

[5] You knew Mr Davis. On Wednesday, 23 February 2011, you and your brother, Kenneth, collected him from his residence in South Auckland. There was talk of a fishing trip. The three of you travelled north in two cars, stopping at another brother, Fred’s, house in Whangarei. You left your vehicle there and you all continued north in a silver BMW.

[6] You and Fred were moving out of a rental property you shared at Otangaroa Side Road, near Kaeo. During the morning of 24 February 2011, you all moved your and Fred’s belongings out of the house. Later in the morning, you, Mr Davis, and Kenneth, were at Mr Neville Dangen’s house on a farm property in Salvation Road, also near Kaeo. Mr Dangen was also present. For no obvious reason, you started to yell and swear at Mr Davis. You brandished a thistle grubber at him. You told Mr Davis to get on the garage floor and threatened to hit him with it if he did not do so. You then told Kenneth to tie him up. Both Mr Davis and Kenneth were asking

you what he had done. You gave no explanation. You simply became more angry. Mr Davis was tied with his hands behind his back. A truck strap was used. You forced Kenneth to put a t-shirt over Mr Davis’ head. You then told Kenneth to pick Mr Davis up off the floor and the two of you took him a few hundred metres down to a woolshed on Mr Dangen’s property. Throughout, Mr Davis was begging for help. You ignored…

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 Bracken

Details

AGLC: R v Bracken [2012] NZHC 3158
Case: [2012] NZHC 3158
Decision Date: 23 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand presided over the case of R v Bracken, where the defendant, Wayne James Bracken, was convicted of multiple serious offenses including murder, kidnapping, aggravated robbery, assault with intent to injure, and burglary. The offenses were committed against Mr. Jack Davis, Mr. Bradley Johns, and Ms. Melissa Cochrane. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentences for each of the offenses, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors present in the case.

The court emphasized the need for accountability, denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the community. Given the gravity of the offenses, particularly the murder committed with extreme brutality and callousness, the court imposed a life sentence with a minimum term of 21 years for the murder. For the other offenses, the court imposed concurrent sentences for the kidnapping and aggravated robbery, and additional sentences for the assault with intent to injure and the burglary. The court highlighted that the defendant would need to apply for release and convince the Parole Board that he no longer posed a risk to society.

The defendant, Bracken, showed no remorse for his actions and had a history of violent offending and illicit drug use. The court noted that Bracken exhibited a strong sense of entitlement and antisocial attitudes, and had offending supportive associates. The court concluded that Bracken was a very dangerous man and posed a real risk to the community. The final orders imposed a life sentence with a minimum term of 21 years for the murder, and concurrent sentences for the other offenses, with the defendant required to engage in rehabilitation programs to stand any chance of being released in the future.

Orders