[1] William Candy and Ethan Webster appear for sentencing having pleaded guilty to charges of murdering Mr Jacob Ramsay.1 Mr Candy has also pleaded guilty to a charge of kidnapping Mr Ramsay,2 and today pleaded guilty to charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

[2] An offender who has been convicted of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless it would be manifestly unjust to do so.3 Counsel for Mr Candy

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 167(b) and 172 – maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2      Section 209 – a maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      Sentencing Act 2002, s 102.

R v CANDY, R v WEBSTER (SENTENCING) [2023] NZHC 414 [6 March 2023]

accepts that this is not the case here. Counsel for Mr Webster, however, contends that it would be manifestly unjust to sentence Mr Webster to life imprisonment.

[3] Before I turn to the appropriate sentence for each defendant, I will set out the factual basis of the offending.

Factual basis of the offending

[4] The victim and the two defendants were farm workers who had a common workplace located in Oaonui, South Taranaki.

[5] The defendants, Mr Candy who was then aged 39, and Mr Webster then aged 18, worked as dairy workers at an address in Kina Road. Mr Candy had been employed in that role for four years and Mr Webster for three years. Both Mr Candy and Mr Webster resided at the farm in separate houses provided by their employer.

[6] The victim, Mr Ramsay was aged 33 years. He was also employed as a dairy milker at the farm. He had been in this role for approximately one month and resided at a separate property a short distance from the defendants.

[7] The Kina Road address is a large dairy farm. The main thoroughfare to access the milking sheds is a tanker track which ran past Mr Webster’s house. It is a hard gravel road. Approximately 900 metres down the tanker track, in one of the paddocks, is a rubbish pit that is used to dispose of farm waste.

Circumstances of the offending

[8] On Friday 26 July 2022, the victim was in Oakura. He had texted another farm worker that he worked with and asked him to come and pick him up. Mr Candy wanted to confront the victim about money he believed the victim owed him. He learned about the text message and instructed the associate farm worker to continue messaging the victim so Mr Candy could locate him.

[9] Mr Candy’s partner drove him to Oakura. He went with the express intention of locating the victim. Mr…

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 Candy

Details

AGLC: R v Candy [2023] NZHC 414
Case: [2023] NZHC 414
Decision Date: 6 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

William Candy and Ethan Webster were sentenced by the High Court of New Zealand for the murder of Mr Jacob Ramsay. The defendants had pleaded guilty to the charges against them. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for each defendant, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case, as well as the purposes and principles of sentencing. The court found that the murder was committed with a high level of brutality, cruelty, depravity, and callousness, and that the victim was particularly vulnerable. The court also found that the murder occurred in the course of another serious offence for Mr Candy, and that both defendants had pleaded guilty and shown some remorse. However, the court determined that a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 17 years would not be manifestly unjust for either defendant. For Mr Candy, the court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with a MPI of 17 years, and for Mr Webster, the court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with a MPI of 12 years. The court also took into account the pre-sentence reports, victim impact statements, and the submissions of the parties in reaching its decision. The court emphasized the importance of holding the offenders accountable for the harm done to the victims and the community, as well as promoting in the offenders a sense of responsibility and an acknowledgment of that harm. The court also considered the need to denounce the conduct involved in the offending, deter the offenders and others from committing the same or a similar offence, and protect the community from the offenders.

Orders