Legal Research
Cases
R v Brackenridge

R v Brackenridge

Case [2019] NZHC 1627 12 July 2019

Sentencing

Mental Health

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI 2016-004-11508

[2019] NZHC 1627

THE QUEEN

v

KIRI PAUL PATIRA BRACKENRIDGE

Hearing: 12 July 2019

Appearances:

S S McMullan and H E Savage for the Crown

M J Dyhrberg QC, N P Chisnall and H B Hellyer for Mr Brackenridge

Judgment:

12 July 2019

SENTENCING NOTES OF JAGOSE J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitors, Meredith Connell, Auckland M J Dyhrberg QC, Auckland
N P Chisnall, Barrister, Auckland H B Hellyer, Barrister, Auckland

R v BRACKENRIDGE [2019] NZHC 1627 [12 July 2019]

[1] Mr Brackenridge, on 7 May 2019, a jury found you guilty of the murder of your mother, Linda Edwards.1 You also were found guilty of arson and dishonest use of a bankcard.2 I convicted you then, and gave you a first strike warning. I now sentence you on your convictions.

[2] For your murder conviction, I must sentence you to life imprisonment, unless that would be manifestly unjust.3 I have considered what counsel have had to say, both for you and for the Crown. The Crown recommends you be sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment (“MPI”) in the range of 11 years. Your counsel, Marie Dyhrberg QC, says life imprisonment in all the circumstances would be manifestly unjust, and recommends you be sentenced instead to a finite term of 11 years’ imprisonment. The Crown says of that, there should still be a minimum period of imprisonment. But I must decide your sentence for myself.

Background

[3] At the time of your offending in November 2016, you suffered from drug- induced schizophrenia. You had stopped using methamphetamine in September 2016, but your psychotic state persisted. It altered your view of your mother and the world. In this state, you travelled from Gisborne to Auckland on 8 November 2016. You went to your mother’s address, a one-bedroom unit in Mt Roskill. That night, the two of you argued, and you became upset. At some point, you strangled your mother, killing her.

[4] You then took her car and bankcard, using the card to make two cash withdrawals – effectively clearing the account – from an ATM. You drove on to a petrol station, and bought cigarettes and a small amount of petrol. You used the petrol to set fire to a sofa inside your mother’s unit. Flames quickly engulfed the unit, rendering it uninhabitable. Ms Edwards’ body was discovered once the fire had been extinguished.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 172. Maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
2      Sections 267(1)(b) and 228(b) respectively. The maximum term of imprisonment for arson is 14 years. The maximum term of imprisonment for use of a document to pecuniary advantage is seven years.
3      Sentencing Act 2002, s 102.

[5] The next day, police went to your sister’s home nearby, where you were. You walked away when police arrived, but soon returned. After some discussions with police, you were arrested.

[6] There was evidence…

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 Brackenridge

Details

AGLC: R v Brackenridge [2019] NZHC 1627
Case: [2019] NZHC 1627
Decision Date: 12 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kiri Paul Patira Brackenridge was convicted of murdering his mother, Linda Edwards, on 7 May 2019, and was also found guilty of arson and dishonest use of a bankcard. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence for these convictions, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors involved. The primary issue was whether life imprisonment would be manifestly unjust given Brackenridge's drug-induced schizophrenia at the time of the offence. The court held that while Brackenridge's mental state was a significant mitigating factor, it did not sufficiently mitigate his culpability to warrant a departure from the mandatory life sentence for murder. The court reasoned that the circumstances of the murder, including its premeditation and the significant harm caused, warranted the default sentence of life imprisonment. However, considering Brackenridge's mental health issues, drug addiction, and personal circumstances, the court set a minimum period of imprisonment of ten years, acknowledging the mitigating factors while ensuring the sentence met the purposes of denunciation and protection of the community.

The court sentenced Brackenridge to life imprisonment for the murder, with a minimum period of ten years. For the arson conviction, he was sentenced to three years and six months, and for the dishonest use of a bankcard, he received a sentence of three months, all to be served concurrently. The outstanding fines were remitted.

Orders