[1] Mr Christison is for sentence today, having pleaded guilty to murdering his former partner, Gail Constant Bower. The murder took place at Havelock North, on
7 June 2013.

[2] The sentence for murder is almost inevitably one of life imprisonment. Having imposed that sentence, the sentencing Court is required to determine the minimum period of imprisonment that the offender must serve before he or she may apply, for the first time, for parole. Two discrete set of rules apply. Where there are particularly serious aggravating factors, the Court is required, presumptively, to impose a minimum period of 17 years. In the absence of such factors, the minimum period is 10 years. Those periods can be adjusted upwards where the circumstances
so dictate.1

[3] In this case, there are three aggravating factors on which the Crown seeks to rely to bring this crime within the category of cases that requires a presumptive mandatory minimum term of 17 years. They involve these questions:

(a) Did the murder involve “calculated or lengthy planning”?2

(b)Did the murder involve “the unlawful entry into, or unlawful presence in, a dwelling place”?3

(c) Was the murder “committed with a high level of brutality, cruelty, depravity or callousness”?4

[4] Mr Christison disputes that those aggravating factors apply in this case. I have heard evidence this morning on matters primarily directed to the questions of planning and the level of culpability involved in what occurred. That has been done
to resolve disputed questions of fact that are relevant for sentencing purposes.

1      Sentencing Act 2002, ss 102–104. In the case of the 17 years period, it may also be adjusted
downwards if to impose a period of that length would be “manifestly unjust”.
2      Ibid, s 104(1)(b).
3      Ibid, s 104(1)(c).
4      Ibid, s 104(1)(e).

[5] The Crown bears the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the aggravating factors exist.5 I have indicated to counsel that if any of the factors were proved I would regard the crime as falling within the presumptive minimum term of
17 years.6

Background

[6] Mr Christison and Ms Bower had been in a relationship for some 23 years. They have two sons, aged 19 and 22 years respectively, at the time of their mother’s death.

[7] For some time, there had been friction within the household. In December

2004, Mr Christison had assaulted Ms Bower. After pleading guilty to a crime of male assaults female, he was ordered to come up for sentence if called upon. Around the same time, Ms Bower sought and obtained a temporary…

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 2813
Case: [2013] NZHC 2813
Decision Date: 24 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the High Court of New Zealand involved Raymond Shayne Christison, who was charged with the murder of his former partner, Gail Constant Bower. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence, including the minimum period of imprisonment before parole eligibility. The Crown sought to establish three aggravating factors to justify a presumptive minimum term of 17 years imprisonment, rather than the standard 10 years. These factors included whether the murder involved calculated or lengthy planning, unlawful presence in a dwelling place, and whether it was committed with a high level of brutality, cruelty, depravity, or callousness.

The court found that the murder was indeed planned in a calculated manner, as evidenced by Christison's actions of disguising himself and carrying a lethal weapon. The court also determined that the murder involved unlawful presence at a dwelling place, considering the context of Bower's protection order and the nature of the property where the crime occurred. Lastly, the court concluded that the murder was committed with a high level of callousness, based on the deliberate and brutal nature of the crime. The court found all three aggravating factors to be present, leading to the imposition of a presumptive minimum term of 17 years imprisonment.

The court's decision was based on the detailed planning and execution of the murder, the unlawful presence on Bower's property, and the callous manner in which the crime was carried out. These findings resulted in a sentence that aligned with the statutory requirements for cases involving such aggravating factors. The court's judgment was delivered orally and the final orders reflected the imposed sentence and the presumptive minimum term of imprisonment.

Orders