R v Brackenridge - [2018] NZHC 164

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2016-004-011508

[2018] NZHC 164

THE QUEEN

v

KIRI PAUL PATIRA BRACKENRIDGE

Hearing: 8 February 2018

Counsel:

S L McColgan for the Crown

M Dyhrberg QC and N P Chisnall for the Defendant

Judgment:

16 February 2018

JUDGMENT OF GORDON J

This judgment was delivered by me
on 16 February 2018 at 4.30 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Auckland Counsel: M Dyhrberg QC, Auckland

R v BRACKENRIDGE [2018] NZHC 164 [16 February 2018]

Introduction

[1] The defendant, Kiri Brackenridge, is to stand trial on one charge of murder,1 one charge of arson2 and one charge of using a document to obtain a pecuniary advantage.3

[2] Mr Brackenridge applies under s 147(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (CPA) to dismiss all three charges on the ground that, as a matter of law, a properly directed jury could not reasonably convict him.4

[3] The application in respect of the arson and using a document charges will be heard together with an application under s 101(2) of the CPA in relation to the admissibility of two statements made by Mr Brackenridge to the police. A decision on the s 101 application may have a bearing on the s 147 application in relation to the arson and using a document charges.

[4] This judgment, therefore, concerns only the application to dismiss the charge of murder. Mr Brackenridge says that there is insufficient evidence to enable a properly directed jury to draw the inference that Mr Brackenridge caused the death of the deceased.

The Crown case – a brief summary

[5] The deceased, Linda Edwards, was Mr Brackenridge’s mother. At the time of her death, she lived in a one bedroom unit in Mt Roskill, Auckland. Mr Brackenridge stayed with his mother from time to time. On 8 November 2016, he returned to Auckland from a short stay with a relative in the Gisborne area. He was present at his mother’s house at least sometime after 9.35 pm on the evening of 8 November.

[6] At about 11.30 pm, Mr Brackenridge drove to the ASB ATM at Three Kings, Auckland in his mother’s Honda car which had been parked at her unit. He withdrew
$100 from his mother’s account. A minute later he made a second withdrawal of $140

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 167.
2      Crimes Act, s 267(1)(b).
3      Crimes Act, s 228(1)(b).
4      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 147(4)(c).

from the same ATM. Mr Brackenridge next drove to a nearby service station and purchased a packet of cigarettes and one dollar’s worth of petrol. Mr Brackenridge then returned to his mother’s address where…

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 [2018] NZHC 164
Case: [2018] NZHC 164
Decision Date: 16 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Brackenridge involves Kiri Brackenridge, who stands accused of murdering his mother, Linda Edwards, through smothering or strangling, setting her and the house on fire to destroy evidence, or intentionally killing her by setting her and the house alight. Brackenridge also faces charges of arson and using a document to obtain a pecuniary advantage. The case was heard by the High Court of New Zealand in Auckland. The central legal issue in this case is whether there is sufficient evidence for a properly directed jury to reasonably convict Brackenridge of murder. The court examined the evidence presented by the Crown, including the pathologist's report, Brackenridge's movements, and his writings, to determine if a jury could reasonably infer that Brackenridge was responsible for his mother's death. After reviewing the evidence, the court found that there was an evidential basis for a properly directed jury to infer that Brackenridge committed an unlawful act that was a substantial and operative cause of death. The court therefore refused Brackenridge's application for a discharge under s 147(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 on the charge of murder.

Orders