Legal Research
Cases
R v Capper

R v Capper

Case [2022] NZHC 3437 15 December 2022

Breach of Peace

Voluntary Manslaughter

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Victim Impact Statements

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2021-063-1083

[2022] NZHC 3437

THE KING

v

WILLIAM JAMES HENARE CAPPER

Hearing: 15 December 2022

Appearances:

A Gordon for Crown

R Mansfield KC and H Stuart for Defendant

Sentence:

15 December 2022

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Rotorua

R v CAPPER [2022] NZHC 3437 [15 December 2022]

[1] Mr Capper you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter.1 The maximum penalty for that offence is life imprisonment.

Background

[2] You have pleaded guilty on the basis of an agreed summary of facts. This records that on the evening of 1 April 2021 you were drinking with three associates at an address in Taupo. These included Mr George Cross, who was your flatmate at the time and was ultimately the victim of your offending. The other two men at the address were your adopted brother Mr Hamish Vickers and another person, Mr William Booth.

[3] Shortly after 11 pm an altercation occurred between Mr Vickers and Mr Cross. The summary does not record what the cause of the argument was. However, it resulted in Mr Cross punching Mr Vickers. The two men then ended up on the kitchen floor grappling with each other. When Mr Vickers freed himself, he picked up a kitchen stool and struck Mr Cross with it. Mr Cross blocked this blow with his arm.

[4] Up until this point you had not been involved in the incident. However, you picked up a hammer and endeavoured to strike Mr Cross on two occasions with it. It is not possible to determine whether the blows connected and, if so, whether they caused Mr Cross any injuries. The second blow caused the head of the hammer to detach, and it landed on the kitchen bench.

[5] At this point Mr Vickers got on top of Mr Cross and held his arms down. Mr Vickers also told Mr Cross to calm down. You then picked up a large kitchen knife from a knife block on the kitchen counter. You walked over to Mr Cross, who was still being held down by Mr Vickers. Mr Booth grabbed you by the shoulder and told you to drop the knife. Rather than drop the knife, you struck Mr Cross on the right leg on several occasions with the knife and told him “that’s what you get”.

[6] When Mr Vickers realised Mr Cross had been injured, he told you to get a towel. You then got two towels and Mr Vickers used these to apply pressure to the

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 160(3) and 171.

wounds to Mr Cross’ leg. Unfortunately, however, the loss of blood from the wounds caused Mr Cross to die.

[7] Mr Cross was later found to have sustained five stab wounds. Four of these were to his right thigh and the remaining wound was to his right leg. Three of the wounds…

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 Capper

Details

AGLC: R v Capper [2022] NZHC 3437
Case: [2022] NZHC 3437
Decision Date: 15 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, William James Henare Capper, appeared in the High Court of New Zealand at Rotorua for sentencing following a guilty plea to the charge of manslaughter. The offence stemmed from an altercation that occurred on the evening of 1 April 2021 in Taupo, where Capper used a kitchen knife to inflict multiple stab wounds to the leg of Mr George Cross, ultimately leading to his death. The court needed to determine an appropriate starting point for the sentence, taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors, and decide on the overall term of imprisonment.

In determining the starting point for the sentence, the court considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, particularly the use of a lethal weapon and the vulnerability of the victim. The court noted that while there was little premeditation, the defendant's actions were still highly culpable given the number and depth of the stab wounds inflicted. The court also took into account the devastating impact on the victim's family, as expressed in their victim impact statements. After reviewing comparable cases and submissions from both the Crown and the defence, the court decided on a starting point of eight years and six months imprisonment, recognising the severity of the offence while considering the lack of premeditation.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's guilty plea, which resulted in a discount of one year, and the recognition of his potential predisposition to alcohol addiction and other personal challenges stemming from his upbringing and substance abuse issues. The court allowed an additional discount of ten months for these factors, leading to a final sentence of six years and eight months imprisonment. The court did not deem a minimum term of imprisonment appropriate, leaving the decision on parole to the authorities, who will assess the defendant's readiness for release based on his efforts to address his alcohol issues.

The court sentenced Capper to six years and eight months imprisonment for the manslaughter of George Cross, reflecting both the seriousness of the offence and the mitigating circumstances presented.

Orders