R v Brider - [2023] NZHC 56

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2023-009-580

[2023] NZHC 56

THE KING

v

JOSEPH JAMES BRIDER

Hearing: 1 February 2023

Counsel:

C J Boshier for Crown

J R Rapley KC and D M Kirby for Defendant

Judgment:

1 February 2023

SENTENCING REMARKS OF EATON J

[1] Mr Brider, you may remain seated until I complete my sentencing remarks. I will then ask you to stand at the conclusion of my remarks when I will formally impose sentence upon you.

[2] Joseph James Brider, you appear this afternoon for sentence having pleaded guilty to the murder and sexual abduction of Juliana Bonilla-Herrera and to breaching prison release conditions.

[3] Ms Bonilla-Herrera was a Colombian woman who had been living in New Zealand for about 10 years. She was a New Zealand resident. Her family reside in Colombia. They are represented in Court today by a number of her friends. I again acknowledge those friends present here in Court and I acknowledge Ms Bonilla-

R v BRIDER [2023] NZHC 56 [1 February 2023]

Herrera’s mother and her sister and other family members who have joined this hearing remotely from Colombia. I hope the family and the friends of Ms Bonilla-Herrera understand that the sentences which I am about to impose are not intended to, and could not possibly, compensate you, those persons most deeply affected by her murder, for what Mr Brider has done, nor could the sentences adequately recognise the harm, Mr Brider, that you have caused.

The facts

[4] In sentencing an offender, the Court is engaging in an important public function. It is an essential component of any sentencing that the facts of the offending are referenced in open court. And because this case was resolved short of a trial by Mr Brider’s guilty pleas, the facts that I am going to refer to are taken from the prosecution summary of facts, albeit supplemented by additional information that has come to light during the preparation of reports for the sentencing. The summary of facts is an extensive document. Its contents have been previously widely publicised. I will describe what I consider to be the essential facts of your offending.

[5] I think we all know that the facts of this case are distressing so if anybody would rather not hear the facts then I invite you to leave the Court and the security officers can call you back in again when I have finished referring to them.

[6] In the small hours of 22 January 2022, you broke into the house of your neighbour, Ms Bonilla-Herrera. You abducted her, and then you murdered her in her own home.

[7] She had been your neighbour since 10 November 2021 when you were released from prison on release conditions. One of those conditions was that you not leave your parole address between the hours of 9 pm and 6 am. In the nine weeks that you lived next door to…

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 Brider

Details

AGLC: R v Brider [2023] NZHC 56
Case: [2023] NZHC 56
Decision Date: 1 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, Joseph James Brider was sentenced for the murder and sexual abduction of Juliana Bonilla-Herrera, and breaching prison release conditions. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for the murder charge, considering the principles and purposes of sentencing, the aggravating factors of the offence, and the defendant's personal considerations. The court also had to decide whether to impose a sentence of preventive detention for the abduction charge.

The court found that the defendant had engaged in calculated and lengthy planning of a sexually motivated, violent offence targeting the victim. The court also found that the offence was committed in the course of another serious offence, the victim was highly vulnerable, and the defendant exhibited a high level of brutality, cruelty, depravity, or callousness. The court further found that the defendant reoffended while subject to release conditions, and his prior offending showed a pattern of escalating serious violent and sexual offending against women. The court determined that the defendant posed a grave risk to women and that there was a need to protect the community from him.

Considering the relevant authorities and the aggravating factors of the offence, the court determined that the appropriate starting point of a minimum sentence of imprisonment was 23 years. The court uplifted that starting point by 18 months to reflect the defendant's criminal history and the fact that he offended while subject to release conditions. The court also imposed a sentence of preventive detention on the charge of abduction for the purpose of sexual connection, with a minimum period of imprisonment of six years. The court ordered that all sentences be served concurrently.

Orders