R v Bush

Case [2018] NZHC 1217 28 May 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 1217

THE QUEEN

v

LANCE TANGIARIKI BUSH

Hearing: 28 May 2018

Counsel:

J N Foster and R L Mann for the Crown P J Morgan QC for the Defendant

Sentence:

28 May 2018

SENTENCE OF EDWARDS J

Counsel: P J Morgan, QC Hamilton

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

R v BUSH [2018] NZHC 1217 [28 May 2018]

[1] Lance Tangiariki Bush, you appear for sentencing today for murder and for aggravated robbery. You pleaded guilty to those charges in the middle of a jury trial earlier this year.

[2] Your convictions relate to the brutal killing of Brent Brown. Before I go on, I want to acknowledge the friends and family of Mr Brown who are in Court today. The law sets out a process which I must follow in sentencing Mr Bush today. It does not, and it cannot, respond adequately to the loss of a loved one in such senseless and horrific circumstances.

[3] I know, too, that you will be disappointed that Lance Bush Jnr is not here for sentencing today. But I hope that you will understand that the sentence which I ultimately impose, whether on Lance Bush Snr or Lance Bush Jnr, must reflect, as closely as possible, what happened that terrible night. And to go ahead today with a sentencing for Lance Bush Jnr would risk getting that sentence wrong, and that, I think you would agree, would be a much worse thing for all concerned.

[4] I will return shortly to the victim impact statements, but for now I do want to acknowledge your presence, and extend the Court’s sympathy for your loss.

The offending

[5]Mr Bush, I now turn to summarise your offending.

[6] Brent Brown was a quiet man who kept to himself. He was a collector of sorts, and the things that he collected were his prized possessions. One of those prized possessions was his Ford Fairmont car, which was parked outside the boarding house where he lived. It was a car worth $800, which did not move, and was full of Mr Brown’s treasures.

[7] Mr Bush, you and an associate, Mr Houia, formed a plan to steal Mr Brown’s car. Apparently, you wanted it for parts. You would tell someone later that the plan was to tie Mr Brown up and then take his car.

[8] On the evening of 31 August 2016 you put that plan into action. You and your son went to the boarding house that night. You went into Mr Brown’s bedroom wearing white latex gloves and armed with a weapon. You threatened Mr Brown. You told him you were going to tie him up so that you could take his car.

[9] Mr Brown appears to have resisted. He began throwing things at you. And you retaliated by commencing a horrific and sustained attack against him. 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 1217
Case: [2018] NZHC 1217
Decision Date: 28 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Lance Tangiariki Bush, was sentenced for the murder of Brent Brown and for aggravated robbery. The defendant had pleaded guilty to both charges during a jury trial. The court acknowledged the victim's family, who were present, and expressed sympathy for their loss. The court detailed the brutal attack on Mr Brown, who was killed by multiple blows to the head and body, and left to die. The court considered the victim impact statements, which highlighted the devastating effect of the murder on Mr Brown's family.

The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, including the minimum period of imprisonment for the murder charge, and a concurrent sentence for the aggravated robbery. The court considered the aggravating features of the offending, including the unlawful entry, the commission of the murder during an aggravated robbery, and the high level of brutality and callousness. The court also considered the comparison to other cases of particularly serious murders and the personal aggravating and mitigating features of the defendant.

The court determined that a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years was appropriate for the murder charge, as it was consistent with the purposes of sentencing and the policy of the relevant statute. The court also considered a 10-year sentence for the aggravated robbery, to be served concurrently with the murder sentence. The court concluded that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offending and provided adequate denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the community.

The court sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment for the murder of Mr Brown, with a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years. The court also sentenced the defendant to 10 years' imprisonment for the aggravated robbery, to be served concurrently with the murder sentence. The court acknowledged the devastating impact of the offending on Mr Brown's family and the community, and expressed sympathy for their loss. The court emphasised that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offending and provided adequate denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the community.

Orders