R v Cameron - [2020] NZHC 1488

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2019-225-000088

[2020] NZHC 1488

THE QUEEN

v

DANIEL ALAN CAMERON

Hearing: 29 June 2020

Appearances:

R W Donnelly for Crown

W N Dawkins and G S Williamson for Defendant

Judgment:

29 June 2020

SENTENCING NOTES OF DUNNINGHAM J

Suppression

[1] Mr Dawkins has formally abandoned his application for continued name suppression. Name suppression is therefore lifted.

Sentencing

[2] Mr Cameron, you are here today for sentence having pleaded guilty to the charge of murder.

R v CAMERON [2020] NZHC 1488 [29 June 2020]

[3] But before I begin the formalities of sentencing I want to acknowledge the members of Hunter’s family who are here today, along with their friends and supporters. I know today is an important milestone in your grieving for Hunter. Through your victim impact statements, through the eulogy that was read at his funeral, and through the photos I have seen of Hunter from birth right through to nine years old, I have got a wonderful picture of what Hunter meant to all of you and how devastated you are not just by his loss, but by the circumstances of it.

[4] As you have heard, I will not be able to give you answers today, no-one has been able to give us answers, and I am not going to be able to compensate you for your loss. It is clear to me that Hunter was too precious to you for that to ever be possible. All I can do is sentence in accordance with the law, and let you return to your lives knowing that the Court process is now behind you.

[5] I also want to acknowledge Mr Cameron’s family today. Their lives have also been shattered through no fault of their own and I know they are hurting too.

Facts of the offending

[6] Before I go on to explain how I have decided on your sentence, I must briefly outline the facts of the offending. These are contained in full in summary of facts but, for the purposes of sentencing, I say the following.

[7] You were 15 years old at the time of the offending and you lived in Otautau with your mother and brother.

[8] The victim in this matter, Hunter, was a nine year old boy. He lived in Otautau with his stepfather and mother. Your families knew each other and you had babysat Hunter on at least 10 previous occasions.

[9] On Wednesday, 30 October, your mother was going to play pool at the local hotel with Hunter’s mother and stepfather, which was a weekly event. At about 6 pm your mother drove you to Hunter’s house to babysit as arranged. Your mother and Hunter’s mother and stepfather left the house at the same time. Your mother then went home for dinner before meeting Hunter’s mother and stepfather at the local hotel.

[10] At around 7.40 pm you were seen walking down…

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 Cameron

Details

AGLC: R v Cameron [2020] NZHC 1488
Case: [2020] NZHC 1488
Decision Date: 29 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cameron was heard by Dunningham J in the High Court of New Zealand at Invercargill. Daniel Alan Cameron, the defendant, was sentenced for the murder of Hunter, a nine-year-old boy, who was stabbed and strangled while in the defendant's care. Cameron had pleaded guilty to the charge of murder. The primary legal issues the court needed to address were the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) for Cameron, considering the statutory requirement for a 17-year MPI due to the victim's vulnerability, and whether imposing such a period would be manifestly unjust.

The court outlined the facts of the offence, noting Cameron's actions before and after the murder, including his communications indicating premeditation and his subsequent attempts to evade responsibility. The court acknowledged the devastating impact on Hunter's family and the community. In determining the sentence, the court considered the purpose and principles of sentencing, including denunciation, deterrence, accountability, and rehabilitation. The statutory requirement for a life sentence necessitated the calculation of the MPI. The court weighed aggravating factors such as the nature of the injuries and the breach of trust against mitigating factors like Cameron's youth, early guilty plea, and lack of prior criminal history. The court also considered Cameron's personal circumstances, including his troubled childhood and potential issues with anger management. After a detailed analysis, the court decided that a 17-year MPI would be manifestly unjust, given Cameron's youth and the potential for rehabilitation. Consequently, the court sentenced Cameron to life imprisonment with a minimum period of 11 years before he could be considered for parole.

The final orders of the court were that Daniel Alan Cameron was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Hunter, with a minimum period of 11 years to be served before parole consideration.

Orders