R v Carroll - [2017] NZHC 2691

SUPPRESSION ORDERS IN RESPECT OF PERSONS NAMED IN SENTENCING REMARKS IN PARA [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2016-009-004274 [2017] NZHC 2691

THE QUEEN

v

PETER JOHN CARROLL

Appearances:
B Hawes and C J Boshier for the Crown

T W Fournier and S G Bailey for the Defendant

Sentencing:

2 November 2017

SENTENCING REMARKS OF NICHOLAS DAVIDSON J

[JUDGE HAS DISCUSSION WITH COUNSEL REGARDING SUPPRESSION]

[1] Before we bring Mr Carroll in, I just want to remind the media that there have been suppression orders made in this case, and there are two further orders to be made, the names of these people will be mentioned in the course of the submissions and the sentencing. The suppression orders apply to the evidence of [XXXX]. So those names are suppressed from any form of publication.

[MR CARROLL IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT]

A. INTRODUCTION

[1] You may be seated Mr Carroll.

R v CARROLL [2017] NZHC 2691 [2 November 2017]

[2] Proceed with the Victim Impact Statements.

[VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS ARE READ IN COURT]

[3] Mr Carroll you may be seated until sentence is pronounced. [4] You appear for sentence for the murder of Marcus Tucker.
Mr Tucker’s family

[5] I first acknowledge Mr Tucker’s family in court this morning. Your grief and the profound effect on your lives will be reflected in the sentencing. I express the sympathy of the court and of the community to you.

[6] Your statements made to the Court need little elaboration, but they are relevant to the sentencing process. These few points stand out to me amongst many made this morning, to reflect the grief and impact on your lives.

[7] Mr Tucker had taken a path which caused you, his family, distress. But you loved him. I have listened to them Mr Carroll, and hope that you have too, to understand the profound consequences of what you regard as coming with the world in which you lived, a world of drug use, dealing, and violence, which has extended
by your actions to devastate the lives of Mr Tucker and his family and friends.

[8] He was the father to three children, the oldest 18 when he died. [XXX’s] mother has had her family and work life turned upside down and [XXX] has been stopped in his tracks, and his education, and [XXX] properly puts it for the families of all who suffer a murder of one of their members when she says “How do you deal with the issue of a family member being murdered and all that surrounds that?”. So many of her and other thoughts of the family have been focused around “Marcus and his horrific death”. There are no illusions held within the family about Marcus’ (Mr Tucker’s) lifestyle and his associations. [XXX] left him to provide a better future for her and her son. But the family expected Mr Tucker would pull himself together at some stage, because he was a man who, in his…

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 Carroll

Details

AGLC: R v Carroll [2017] NZHC 2691
Case: [2017] NZHC 2691
Decision Date: 2 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, the case of R v Carroll [2017] NZHC 2691 involved the sentencing of Peter John Carroll for the murder of Marcus Tucker. The legal issues before the court were whether a minimum term of imprisonment of 17 years should be imposed under section 104(1)(e) of the Sentencing Act 2002, and if not, what the appropriate minimum term should be under section 103 of the Act. The court found that the murder was committed with a high level of callousness, warranting the imposition of a 17-year minimum term under section 104(1)(e). The court concluded that the brutal and unpitying nature of the assault, the defendant's conduct, and his attitude towards the victim's death demonstrated extreme callousness. The defendant's actions, including setting the victim's body on fire and leaving it to be found, further supported this finding. The court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum term of 17 years, and issued a "three strikes" warning regarding the consequences of future serious violent convictions.

Orders