R v Bush

Case [2018] NZHC 1354 8 June 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2016-019-005890

[2018] NZHC 1354

THE QUEEN

v

LANCE ATI JACKSON BUSH

Hearing: 8 June 2018

Counsel:

J N Foster and R L Mann for the Crown

T Sutcliffe and L F Walkington for the Defendant

Sentence:

8 June 2018

SENTENCE OF EDWARDS J

Counsel: T Sutcliffe, Hamilton
L F Walkington, Hamilton

Solicitors: Almao Douch (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Hamilton

R v BUSH [2018] NZHC 1354 [8 June 2018]

[1] Lance Bush, you appear for sentencing today for manslaughter. You may remain seated until I ask you to stand to pass sentence.

[2] Your conviction relates to the brutal killing of Brent Brown. Regrettably, for the family, this is the third sentencing resulting from the death of their loved one. They are here again for your sentencing and I want to acknowledge their presence here today.

The offending

[3] The manslaughter conviction arises out of events on the evening of 31 August 2016.

[4] Your father and a co-defendant, Mr Houia, formed a plan to steal Mr Brown’s treasured Ford Fairmont car. It was a car worth $800, which did not work, and was parked outside the boarding house where Mr Brown lived.

[5] On 31 August 2016, you went with your father to the boarding house at his request. The summary of facts to which you pleaded guilty records that you did not know the purpose of the visit at that stage.

[6] When you arrived, you waited outside, and your father went into Mr Brown’s bedroom armed with a weapon. He threatened Mr Brown, telling him he intended to tie him up and take his treasured car. Mr Brown responded by throwing things at him. Your father then retaliated with a vicious and brutal assault.

[7] You went into the bedroom to assist your father. You held Mr Brown so that your father could continue his assault. That assault involved your father striking Mr Brown hard in the head with a weapon causing a visible hole in Mr Brown’s skull and significant bleeding. Those injuries were one of the causes of death. In addition, your father inflicted multiple blows to Mr Brown’s body, and his legs were also bound during this period.

[8] Three of your palm prints and a right thumb print were found in Mr Brown’s blood on the bedroom walls above Mr Brown’s head. Another of your palm prints was found on a computer monitor in the room.

[9] In the course of this attack, you became upset at the extent of the violence being inflicted by your father, and you left the room. You went outside the boarding house and crossed the road. Your father remained inside, and it appears that the attack continued, because you could still hear noises coming from Mr Brown’s bedroom.

[10] Your father came over to you. He asked you to return to the property. You hesitated. But eventually you…

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 Bush

Details

AGLC: R v Bush [2018] NZHC 1354
Case: [2018] NZHC 1354
Decision Date: 8 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bush involved the sentencing of Lance Bush for the manslaughter of Brent Brown. The incident occurred on 31 August 2016 when Bush, along with his father and another co-defendant, planned to steal Brown's car. Bush's role in the assault that led to Brown's death involved holding Brown while his father inflicted severe injuries. Bush pleaded guilty to manslaughter after his father pleaded guilty to murder. The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for the sentence, adjusting for personal aggravating and mitigating factors, applying a discount for the guilty plea, and deciding whether to impose a minimum period of imprisonment.

The court began by setting a starting point for the sentence, considering the aggravating and mitigating features of the offending. The court identified three significant aggravating features: Bush's active participation in enabling his father to inflict severe injuries on Brown, the two-on-one assault, and the invasion of Brown's privacy. The court found no pre-meditation or direct infliction of fatal injuries by Bush, and it acknowledged the influence of Bush's father, which reduced but did not excuse his culpability. The court compared Bush's case with other manslaughter cases and settled on a starting point of seven years, six months. The court applied a six-month uplift for Bush's extensive criminal history but declined a separate discount for remorse, finding his statements to reflect regret rather than genuine remorse. A 15 per cent discount for the guilty plea resulted in a sentence of six years, nine months’ imprisonment. The court determined that no minimum period of imprisonment was necessary.

In summary, the court sentenced Lance Bush to six years, nine months’ imprisonment for manslaughter, reflecting his culpability, the harm caused, and the need for deterrence and community protection. The court also formally discharged the murder charge against Bush at the Crown’s request.

Orders