Sentenced: 30 March 2012
Murder – life imprisonment
Attempting to pervert the course of justice – six years’ imprisonment
(concurrent) – minimum non-parole period of 13 years eight months.
SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Copy to: S Grieve QC, Auckland
K Cato, Auckland

R V CALLAGHAN HC AK CRI-2010-004-017056 [30 March 2012]

[1] Bradford Callaghan, you have pleaded guilty to murder and also to a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

[2] The sentence for murder in New Zealand is life imprisonment. That is the sentence I must impose on you. I mention that now because there is a danger that that may be lost sight of because the focus of this morning’s hearing has been on the minimum term of imprisonment that you must serve as part of that life sentence. The real issue for this morning’s hearing is the minimum term of imprisonment that you must serve as part of that life sentence.

[3] I start first with the facts. You and the deceased, Ms Thomas, had a relatively brief relationship while you were working overseas in England. Ms Thomas became pregnant and had your son. Although your relationship with her had ended while you were still in England, after you returned to New Zealand Ms Thomas came to New Zealand and brought your son with her. You shared custody of him. He was a large part of your life.

[4] On the evening of 28 June 2010 Ms Thomas contacted you. She wanted to talk to you about your son and issues that she considered were arising at his school. The next morning you went to her home. During the course of the discussion with her something happened which led to your striking her a number of times about her head and face. During the assault on her you used a blunt object (according to the pathologist) and you say it was a child’s baseball bat that was left in the flat. Using that you inflicted at least eight blows on her around the head and face. She was left with a seven centimetre laceration on the back right of her head, a four centimetre laceration on the upper right forehead, a four centimetre laceration on the right frontal region of her scalp, a six centimetre laceration within the frontal scalp, a six centimetre laceration above her right ear, and three lacerations on the left parietal region.

[5] During your attack on her Ms Thomas screamed. A neighbour heard her. She says she also heard you attempting to quieten Ms Thomas down. Ultimately Ms Thomas died of the extensive injuries inflicted by you on her. The fatal injury was

the blow 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 Callaghan

Details

AGLC: R v Callaghan [2012] NZHC 596
Case: [2012] NZHC 596
Decision Date: 30 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bradford Callaghan was convicted of murdering Ms Thomas and attempting to pervert the course of justice. The court was required to decide the appropriate sentence for these offences. The court noted that the murder was not premeditated but was a result of a sudden loss of control due to an argument over the upbringing of their son. The court also considered Callaghan's attempts to cover up the crime, which included dismembering the body and burying it. The court considered the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act, including promoting a sense of responsibility, providing for the interests of the victims, denouncing the conduct, and deterring others from acting in a similar way. The court set a minimum non-parole period of 13 years and eight months, reflecting the seriousness of the offences and Callaghan's remorse.

The court found that the murder, while not premeditated, involved a degree of brutality and callousness. The court also found that Callaghan's attempts to cover up the crime were deliberate and sustained, making this case near the most serious case of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The court considered Callaghan's personal circumstances, including his lack of a criminal record and his remorse, and applied a discount for his guilty plea. The court ultimately sentenced Callaghan to life imprisonment for the murder and six years' imprisonment for attempting to pervert the course of justice, to be served concurrently, with a minimum non-parole period of 13 years and eight months.

Orders