Charges:
Plea:

Murder x1

Wounding with intent to injure x1

Murder - Not Guilty
Wounding with intent to injure - Guilty

Appearances:

J Dixon and L Clancy for Crown
P J B Winter and R McCausland for Prisoner

Sentenced:

17 September 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Copy to: P J B Winter, Auckland
R McCausland, Auckland

R v CHURCHIS [2014] NZHC 2257 [17 September 2014]

[1] Firstly I acknowledge the presence in Court of members of the victim, Mr Linder’s family and the supporters of Mr Churchis. Nothing the Court can say or do today can obviously affect what happened last year when Mr Linder was killed but members of Mr Linder’s family have the Court’s sympathy.

[2] Steven Ray Churchis you are for sentence having pleaded guilty to one charge of wounding with intent to injure and having been found guilty by a jury of the murder of Edwin Linder. The penalty for murder in the circumstances of this case is life imprisonment. That is the sentence the Court will impose on you. The issue for today is the length of time you must serve before you are eligible for consideration of parole. I make it clear, however, that even when ultimately you are considered for and granted parole you will still be subject to the sentence of life imprisonment.

[3] On the evening of 30 July 2013 you were in Auckland city with a group of associates, three other youths and two young women. The complainant to the wounding with intent charge, Mr Walker joined your group in Albert Park. He had a
15 bottle box of Steinlager and offered that and cannabis to your group. You drank a number of bottles of beer. The others drank the beer and smoked synthetic cannabis. At about 9.30 pm, after you had been socialising for some time, you deliberately threw a partially consumed bottle of beer at Mr Walker’s head. It struck him on the back of his head. It hit him hard enough to make him fall to the ground. As he got up you attacked him. You punched him numerous times in the face with a closed fist. You also attempted to choke him. He struggled free and ran out of Albert Park towards Queen Street. A member of the public saw his face was covered in blood. He reported your assault on him to a police officer. Mr Walker was taken to hospital. He had bruising to his right eye, extensive facial bruising and tenderness to his mid face, swelling and tenderness to the right of the jaw, swelling and tenderness to his nose, a cut to the lip, and bi-lateral nasal bone fractures. When you were spoken to by the police about that assault you said that Mr Walker was paying too much attention to your girlfriend. You warned him that she…

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 Churchis

Details

AGLC: R v Churchis [2014] NZHC 2257
Case: [2014] NZHC 2257
Decision Date: 17 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Churchis involved Steven Ray Churchis, who was charged with the murder of Edwin Linder and wounding with intent to injure Mr Walker. The sentencing hearing took place in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. Churchis pleaded guilty to wounding with intent to injure and was found guilty by a jury of the murder of Linder. The primary legal issue was the determination of the minimum non-parole period for the murder sentence, considering the statutory requirements and the circumstances of the offence. The Court had to balance the purposes of accountability, deterrence, denunciation, and community protection against the mitigating factors of Churchis’s age, lack of premeditation, and remorse.

The Court of Justice Venning assessed the gravity of the offence, noting that Churchis's assault on Linder was brutal, involving excessive force and a lack of regard for Linder's vulnerability. Despite Churchis's arguments regarding his state of mind and the circumstances of the incident, the jury concluded that he had the intent to cause serious bodily harm, which resulted in Linder's death. The Court also considered Churchis's prior unrelated offending, his history of anger management issues, and his potential for rehabilitation. Balancing these factors, the Court determined that a minimum non-parole period of 11½ years was appropriate for the murder charge, acknowledging the severity of the crime while also considering Churchis's youth and expressed remorse. For the wounding with intent to injure charge, the Court imposed a concurrent sentence of two years and three months imprisonment.

Orders