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 who were present to listen to the evidence given at the disputed fact hearing.  I am particularly concerned at the need for Matthew to give evidence.   That must have been a particularly difficult situation in which he found himself.  Nevertheless, it was a process through which it was necessary to go before sentencing could take place.

[6]      I also recognise the presence of family and friends from Mr Christison’s side of the family.  Many of you will have suffered a loss, through no fault of your own as well.

[7]      I have read the victim impact statements.  They are moving.  I recognise comments  made  by  some  of  you  about  the  difficulty  in  putting  your  thoughts together for a stranger, such as me.  I thank you for taking the time and making the effort because they have provided me with some insight into Ms Bower’s character and personality that I may not otherwise have appreciated fully.

Analysis

[8]      In  determining  the  minimum  period  of  imprisonment,  I  am  required  to consider first whether there are any aggravating which bring your case within the category for which the presumptive minimum period is one of 17 years.  I have already decided that there are.  The murder was carried out in a calculated way.  You were unlawfully present in a dwelling place and there was callousness involved in the way in  which  the  killing took  place.   That  being so,  the presumption  is  a minimum period of 17 years imprisonment.

[9]      The  next  step  I am  required  to  consider  is  whether  there  are  any other relevant aggravating or mitigating factors that might justify a minimum period of less or more than 17 years.  In undertaking that part of the analysis, I have regard to the particular matters to which both Mr Manning, for the Crown, and Mr Snell, for you, have put so eloquently.

[10]     So far as aggravating factors are concerned, there are the three aspects to which I have referred.  This is not a case in which only one is present.  There are three, and while they overlap to a degree, I need to take account of that.   Within those general features, there are matters such as the use of a disguise, the entry to a dwelling place at night, the fact that you were armed with a weapon and the high number of wounds that were inflicted.  Indeed, the number of wounds were such that the pathologist was unable to say which may have caused death.

[11]     So far as mitigating factors are concerned, you have entered a relatively early guilty plea.   Ordinarily, you would entitled to some credit for that.   The credit to which you would otherwise have been entitled is dissipated, however, by the fact that you undertook the disputed fact hearing.  I am particularly concerned at the need for your son to give evidence.  The family has been put through the need to listen to some graphic evidence that it would have been preferable to avoid.

[12]     Having said that, I am prepared to take some account of the guilty plea for two reasons.  The first is my finding that you honestly believe the evidence that you gave today.  I accept, for the reasons I gave earlier, that you have convinced yourself that that is what happened.   However, objectively, it is simply not the case.   The second is that you did take responsibility for your offending at an early time.  You alerted your mother to it and gave her the opportunity to be first at the scene.  A guilty plea normally recognises an acceptance of responsibility.  You accepted that responsibility at an earlier time.

[13]     I also accept that there is remorse.  That was evidenced by the way in which you responded when you realised the enormity of what you had done.  It took the form at an attempt at suicide and you retained for some time suicidal thoughts.  That is partly linked with the depressive illness from which you suffer, and there is a degree of diminished responsibility as a result.

[14]   Rather than pick a relatively arbitrary number of years to reflect both aggravating and mitigating factors, I will simply say that I regard them as balancing each other out.   For that reason, I propose to impose a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years.

[15]     There is no need for me to consider whether that was manifestly unjust, given the reasons I have already given for doing so.  They have taken into account all of the factors that could otherwise have been used to reduce the minimum period.

Result

[16]    Mr Christison, you are sentenced to life imprisonment.  You will serve a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years before you are eligible to apply for parole.

[17]     Stand down.

P R Heath J