R v Christison - [2013] NZHC 2814

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CRI 2013-020-1634 [2013] NZHC 2814

THE QUEEN

v

RAYMOND SHAYNE CHRISTISON

Hearing: 24 October 2013

Counsel:

S B Manning and F E Cleary for Crown
A J Snell for Defendant

Judgment:

24 October 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF HEATH J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Napier
Counsel:
A J S Snell, Hastings

R v CHRISTISON [2013] NZHC 2814 [24 October 2013]

Introduction

[1] Raymond Shayne Christison, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to one count of murder. On that charge you are convicted and must be sentenced to life imprisonment. The only issue with which I need to be concerned today is the length of the minimum non-parole period.

[2] Because the nature of a minimum non-parole period is often misunderstood, I would like to take some time to explain its purpose. A sentence of life imprisonment means just that. Unless at some time in the future, the Parole Board is satisfied that the public need no longer be protected from you, you will stay in prison for the rest of your life. The term I am required to fix is the first occasion on which you may be considered for parole. The fact that you may apply on that occasion does not, of course, necessarily mean that you will be released on parole. The Parole Board will hear evidence to determine whether you remain a threat to the public. Even if you were released, you will remain on parole for the rest of your life and, if there are any concerns raised about your behaviour, you could be recalled to serve the balance of your sentence in prison.

[3] Earlier today, I conducted a disputed fact hearing. The purpose of that hearing was to determine the circumstances in which you came to kill your former partner, Ms Bower. I have already explained the background to the killing in some detail.1 My present summary of relevant issues will, therefore, be relatively brief.

[4] Your crime also qualifies for what is commonly known as the “Three Strikes” regime. You will receive a written warning from the Registrar explaining exactly what that means. I am also required to give a brief explanation myself.2 In short, if you are convicted of any serious violent offences of the type you will read in the notice, you will need to serve any sentence of imprisonment without parole. If you were again to be convicted of murder you would be sentenced to life imprisonment
without parole, unless it would be manifestly unjust to impose such a sentence.3

1      R v Christison [2013] NZHC 2813.
2      Sentencing Act 2002, s 86B(1) and (2).
3      Ibid, ss 86C(4) and 86E(2).

Acknowledgement of victims’ family and friends

[5] Before I deal with the formal sentencing process, I want to acknowledge and recognise members of the victim’s family and her friends who are here in Court today. I understand how distressing it must have been for those of you…

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 Christison

Details

AGLC: R v Christison [2013] NZHC 2814
Case: [2013] NZHC 2814
Decision Date: 24 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Christison, the defendant, Raymond Shayne Christison, appeared before the High Court of New Zealand, Napier Registry, for sentencing following a guilty plea to a charge of murder. The central issue before the court was determining the length of the minimum non-parole period for Christison's life imprisonment sentence. The court conducted a hearing to ascertain the circumstances surrounding the murder of Christison's former partner, Ms Bower, and considered both aggravating and mitigating factors in setting the non-parole period. Aggravating factors included the calculated nature of the crime, unlawful presence in a dwelling, and the callousness of the killing, while mitigating factors comprised an early guilty plea and evidence of remorse, though the latter was partially offset by the distress caused to the victim's family during the hearing.

The court's reasoning involved a detailed examination of the factors presented. It found that the crime's aggravating aspects warranted a presumptive minimum period of 17 years, but also acknowledged mitigating factors such as Christison's early acceptance of responsibility and his display of remorse. Ultimately, the court concluded that these factors balanced each other out, leading to the imposition of a 17-year minimum non-parole period. This decision was made with consideration of the impact on the victim's family and friends, who were acknowledged for their presence and the emotional toll the proceedings had on them. The court ensured that all relevant factors were weighed in determining the appropriate sentence.

Orders