R v Collings - [2022] NZHC 1275

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2020-009-6184

[2022] NZHC 1275

THE QUEEN

v

GARATH RICHARD COLLINGS

Hearing: 1 June 2022

Appearances:

D L Elsmore and A M Harvey for Crown

D J Matthews and O K Jarvis for Defendant

Judgment:

1 June 2022

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MANDER J

[1] Mr Collings, I will ask you to stand at the conclusion of my sentencing remarks so you may remain seated while I deliver them.

[2] Mr Collings, you are for sentence this morning for the murder Robin Friend.1 It is necessary that I set out the factual basis upon which I proceed to sentence you this morning. The circumstances are of relatively short compass.

The facts

[3] On the morning of 13 July 2020, you drove your vehicle to the end of a cul- de-sac in Parklands, here in Christchurch. You, together with a male associate, Mr de Lambert, were there to pick up a female friend, Ms Fielding, from her address.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 167(b) and 172(1).

R v COLLINGS [2022] NZHC 1275 [1 June 2022]

[4] After Ms Fielding got into the back of your car, Mr Friend approached from the address and spoke with her through the window. He then walked around the front of the vehicle to the driver’s side and commenced speaking with you through the driver’s window.

[5] There was evidence the two of you did not get on and there existed a mutual animosity. That was why arrangements had been made earlier that morning designed, at least initially, to avoid the two of you coming into contact and was illustrated by Ms Fielding’s efforts to get others to pick her up from the address.

[6] As it was described by Mr de Lambert, you and Mr Friend began bickering. Voices were not raised and the exchange was relatively short. There is some evidence that Mr Friend may have made a threatening comment relating to your family. As I say, the exchange of words was relatively brief and, from the point of view of the other two people in the car, not particularly noteworthy, although you were observed as having become “a wee bit flustered” and annoyed.

[7] As Mr Friend walked in front of your car to return to the kerb, you suddenly accelerated and drove at him. The deliberateness of this action was marked by the way you turned the vehicle’s wheels towards him with the obvious intent of striking him. You continued to accelerate the vehicle until it finally crashed. At no stage did you pause. You ignored the reactions of the other occupants of the vehicle and made no attempt to brake. Mr Friend was effectively taken from a point on the road onto the footpath and across the length of the street frontage of the nearby address. His attempts to remain upright and retreat were in vain. As was apparent from the video footage which captured the…

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 Collings

Details

AGLC: R v Collings [2022] NZHC 1275
Case: [2022] NZHC 1275
Decision Date: 1 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Collings was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry. The defendant, Garath Richard Collings, was sentenced for the murder of Robin Friend. The court heard that Collings deliberately drove his vehicle at Friend, killing him, after an altercation between the two men. The court received victim impact statements from Friend's family and considered Collings' personal circumstances, including his criminal history, health issues, and the recent death of his daughter.

The legal issues before the court were whether the circumstances of the offence and the offender warranted a departure from the presumption of life imprisonment for murder and, if so, the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment. The defence argued that the offence was impulsive and occurred over a matter of seconds, and that Collings' mental state and recent bereavement should be taken into account. The prosecution argued that the use of a vehicle as a weapon and Collings' criminal history warranted a higher minimum period of imprisonment.

The court found that while Collings' mental state and recent bereavement may have played a part in causing him to react as he did, it did not mitigate his actions to the extent necessary to displace the strong presumption that life imprisonment should follow a conviction for murder. The court also found that there was evidence of an intention to kill and that the use of a vehicle as a weapon was a significant aggravating factor. The court set a minimum period of imprisonment of 11 years, taking into account the reactionary nature of the offending and Collings' criminal history.

Collings was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 11 years. The court emphasised that life imprisonment means just that and that Collings may be required to spend the rest of his life in prison unless and until the Parole Board is able to conclude he can safely be released into the community.

Orders