R v Carden-Soole - [2021] NZHC 65

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2020-019-000097

[2021] NZHC 65

THE QUEEN

v

ASHA CARDEN-SOOLE

Hearing: 3 February 2021

Appearances:

D J McWilliam for Crown S McColgan for Defendant

Date:

3 February 2021

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Tauranga Counsel: S McColgan, Auckland

R v CARDEN-SOOLE [2021] NZHC 65 [3 February 2021]

[1] Asha Carden-Soole, you are for sentence by this Court having pleaded guilty to one charge of illegal possession of a firearm and one charge of manslaughter. The maximum penalty for the charge of manslaughter is life imprisonment.

[2] Before referring to the facts which I have to consider before sentencing you, I want to acknowledge Mr Copestake’s family and friends. The sentence I impose is mandated by legal principles and precedents. It is not intended to be and never could be a measurement of the loss that you have all suffered and will continue to suffer as a result of Joshua’s death. I also acknowledge the presence of your family in support of you, Mr Carden-Soole. You are fortunate to have that support.

[3] Mr Carden-Soole, on 4 January 2020, you and your partner had been with the victim, Joshua Copestake during the course of the day. You were the best of friends. You and he had been friends since childhood. That day you had been drinking at another friend’s place and then returned home to your address in Seaforth Road at Waihi Beach. You and your partner had a meal and about 9.15 pm went to bed. Then a female boarder arrived home from work and told you and your partner that Mr Copestake was coming around for some drinks. You got up and watched some television in the lounge. Mr Copestake arrived about 9.40 pm and he and the boarder then drove back to Waihi beach town, and got some food at a takeaway.

[4] Before leaving they told you they were going to get food. By that stage Mr Copestake had not come inside. They returned about 10 minutes later with the food and went straight into the shed to eat the meal and have a drink. I have heard the victim impact statement from a person who is referred to in the summary of facts as the boarder this morning. After about five minutes Mr Copestake left the shed and came up to the main house to use a tap on the outside wall of the house.

[5] At about that time you had left the lounge area, gone to your bedroom and retrieved the single barrel shotgun from the corner of your bedroom. You had previously illegally obtained that shotgun on or about 29 December 2019. You did not have a licence for the gun. You did not secure it or store it securely. You kept it in the lounge or in your bedroom, either under the bed or the corner of the bedroom. You also had…

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 Carden-Soole

Details

AGLC: R v Carden-Soole [2021] NZHC 65
Case: [2021] NZHC 65
Decision Date: 3 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Asha Carden-Soole was sentenced by the High Court of New Zealand for the illegal possession of a firearm and manslaughter. The case arose from the tragic shooting of Joshua Copestake, a close friend of the defendant, which occurred when Carden-Soole fired a shot from his bedroom window, fatally striking Copestake. Carden-Soole had obtained the firearm illegally and failed to secure it properly, resulting in the tragic incident. The court considered various factors in determining the appropriate sentence, including the gravity of the offence, the defendant's culpability, and the impact on the victim's family and friends.

The legal issues before the court included determining an appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering the defendant's personal circumstances, and assessing the degree of culpability and remorse shown by the defendant. The court found that the defendant's actions were marked by significant negligence and a lack of foresight, particularly in handling the firearm without checking if it was loaded. The court also took into account mitigating factors such as the defendant's youth, acceptance of responsibility, and remorse. The Crown recommended a starting point of four and a half to five years, while defence counsel suggested a starting point of no more than four years and six months.

The court determined a starting point of four years and eight months, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the defendant's culpability. After applying reductions for early guilty plea, youth, remorse, and time spent on electronic monitoring bail, the final sentence was two years and eight months' imprisonment, to run concurrently with the sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm, which was six months' imprisonment. The court also ordered the destruction of the firearm. The judge urged the defendant to lead a productive life upon release and to respect the memory of the victim by his actions.

Orders