R v Browne - [2017] NZHC 2389

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2016-090-005727 [2017] NZHC 2389

THE QUEEN

v

ANNA EIAO BROWNE

Hearing: 29 September 2017

Appearances:

N Webby and S McColgan for Crown
M Dyhrberg QC, B Hunt and K Martelli for Defendant

Sentenced:

29 September 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF WYLIE J

Solicitors/counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland
M Dyhrberg QC, Auckland

R v BROWNE [2017] NZHC 2389 [29 September 2017]

[1] Ms Browne, you appear today for sentence, having been found guilty by a jury of one charge of murder, pursuant to ss 167, 168 and 172 of the Crimes Act
1961. The maximum penalty for that offence is one of life imprisonment. It falls to me to pass that sentence on you. The primary issue I need to determine today is the length of the minimum term that you must serve in prison before you will become eligible to apply for parole.

Relevant facts

[2] The facts in this case are relatively straightforward.

[3] On 15 October 2016, Emmanuelle Sinclair hosted a party for her female friends at her house in Te Atatu. She had arranged for a professional nail technician to attend to give nail treatments to her guests. It was intended that the party would be a social get-together for old friends, many of whom had not seen each other for some time.

[4] You were not a close friend of many of the others in the group, but you were invited.

[5] You and the deceased, Carly Stewart, arrived at the house either late in the morning or around midday. Others arrived over the course of the afternoon.

[6] Many of the guests at the party, but not all, were drinking alcohol. Facebook live feeds taken at the time were played during the course of the trial. It is clear that the guests at the party were having a good time, and that the mood was relaxed and happy. There were a number of children present.

[7] You consumed a significant amount of alcohol during the course of the day. While there was a suggestion at trial that there may have been drugs present at the party, the evidence did not support that proposition.

[8] Over the course of the afternoon, there was tension between you and another party-goer – Justine Evans – probably because she was a Pākehā or perhaps because of her partner. Ms Sinclair remonstrated with you about this. You and she ended up in a back bedroom in the house. Your conversation with Ms Sinclair escalated into a

scuffle, in the course of which a chest of drawers was knocked over. Ms Sinclair had to call out to children playing outside the house, to get their help in getting the bedroom door open.

[9] This scuffle attracted the attention of other party-goers, including Ms Stewart, and it resulted in a further confrontation between you and Ms Stewart in the hallway outside the bedroom. Ms Stewart accused…

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 Browne

Details

AGLC: R v Browne [2017] NZHC 2389
Case: [2017] NZHC 2389
Decision Date: 29 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of The Queen v Anna Eiao Browne addressed the sentencing of Ms Browne for the murder of Carly Stewart. Ms Browne was found guilty by a jury of one charge of murder under sections 167, 168, and 172 of the Crimes Act 1961, and the court was tasked with determining the length of the minimum term of imprisonment she must serve before becoming eligible for parole. The maximum penalty for the offence is life imprisonment.

The court considered several legal issues, including the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case, the applicability of psychological conditions as mitigating factors, and the appropriateness of any discount for claimed remorse. The Crown argued for a minimum term of 12 years, while the defence agreed with this term but sought a discount for Ms Browne's psychological conditions and claimed remorse. The court had to determine if these factors warranted a reduction in the minimum term.

The court reasoned that while Ms Browne's psychological conditions and claimed remorse were noted, they did not mitigate her culpability for the offence. The court found that Ms Browne's actions were premeditated, violent, and committed in front of vulnerable witnesses, including children. The use of a weapon and the escalation of the confrontation were significant aggravating factors. The court also considered Ms Browne's previous convictions for violent offences, indicating a predisposition to violent behaviour. As a result, the court imposed a minimum term of 12 years, aligning with the Crown's submission and the comparable cases referenced. The court emphasised the need to protect the community and ensure Ms Browne addresses her issues before any consideration of parole.

The final orders of the court were that Ms Browne be sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 12 years before being eligible to apply for parole. The court highlighted that the parole authorities would only release her if satisfied she had addressed her alcohol and substance abuse issues and propensity for violence.

Orders