R v Craig HC Christchurch Cri-2007-009-695

[2007] NZHC 2074

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2007-009-000695

REGINA

v

BRENT PAUL CRAIG

Hearing:         30 August 2007

Appearances: B M Stanaway & C E Butchard for Crown

J J McCall for Prisoner

Judgment:      30 August 2007

SENTENCING OF HON. JUSTICE JOHN HANSEN

[1]      Mr Craig, you have pleaded guilty to one count of murder, the victim being someone known to you, Mr Baker.

[2]      He was a close friend of your partner, Ms Moore.  On 10 January this year you and Ms Moore went to the victim’s house.   There was a verbal altercation between you and Mr Baker.  You left, leaving your partner there.  She was still there the following Tuesday.

[3]      On the evening of Monday 15 January you, with a friend, went fishing at the New Brighton pier.  Obviously alcohol was consumed.  You determined, in the early hours of the morning, to go to the victim’s house in an attempt to persuade your partner to come home.   You arrived, unannounced and unexpected, in the early

hours.   You entered through the front door, and walked into the bedroom.   The

R V CRAIG HC CHCH CRI-2007-009-000695  30 August 2007

victim and your partner were sitting at opposite sides of the room.   You spoke to them, and then suddenly, without warning, drew your fish filleting knife from the sheath on your belt.  You slashed the victim 11 times across the face; stabbed him once in the groin, twice in the chest.  The stabbing wounds were fatal.

[4]      Your friend came around to find out what was happening because you had not returned.  He contacted the police.  You stayed until the police arrived, and it must  be  said  in  your  favour  that  you  made a  full  and  frank  confession  of  the offending to the police.

[5]      There are victim impact statements from the victim’s sister and from your former partner.  The victim impact statement of your partner has not been read to the Court, but it is apparent that there was no physical relationship between her and the victim.   He was simply a friend who had helped her a number of times over the years.  The victim’s sister’s victim impact statement has been read to the Court by the prosecutor, and reveals the psychological trauma one would expect of someone who has had a sibling brutally murdered.

[6]      In terms of the Sentencing Act it is necessary under s7 for this Court to hold you accountable for the harm done to the victim and the community – the harm to the victim speaks for itself – providing as far as possible for the interests of the victim; and, importantly for offending of this sort, denunciation, deterrence and the protection of the community.

[7]      Under s8 it is necessary for this Court to take into account the gravity of the offending and your culpability.  This is serious offending, and your culpability high. It is also necessary to carry out the enviable task of placing your offending in a sliding scale of seriousness for this type of offending.  Murder, by its very nature, is the most serious offending in the criminal statutes.  While there are more vicious and more brutal attacks than this, this still is serious offending of its type.

[8]      You are aged 33.  You have had drug and alcohol problems, and a difficult upbringing.  You have a wide raft of previous offending, of most significance your two most recent offences, to which I will return.

[9]      This being a case of murder, the matter is governed by s103 of the Sentencing Act.  The Crown accepts that s104 does not apply in this particular case.  Under that section this Court is obliged to order a minimum period of imprisonment.  That must be the minimum term of imprisonment, being not less than ten years, that is appropriate to hold you accountable for the harm done to the victim and the community; denouncing the conduct in which you were involved; deterring you and other persons from committing similar offences; and protecting the community from you.

[10]     Whilst s104 does not apply, it is relevant, in my opinion, to consider the aggravating and mitigating factors in determining a minimum term of imprisonment pursuant to s103.   In this case there are significant aggravating features.   I accept your counsel’s submission that the knife was not taken there in a pre-meditated way, but you used this to stab the victim three times, but it went further, because as I have already noted,  you slashed the victim  11  times  to  the face.    The loss  or  harm resulting from this offence is obvious.  The victim impact statements illustrate the extent of that.   This occurred in the victim’s own home.   He was sitting in an armchair in the early hours of the morning.   You arrived, unannounced and unexpected.  He was particularly vulnerable.  He clearly suffered from alcoholism. Although 45, he was in poor health from hepatitis and alcohol liver disease.   The pathologist commented that he was a man who looked older than his age.  He was of a very slight build, weighing only 57 kilograms, which can be compared with your appearance in Court today.  The contrast is self-evident.  His blood alcohol level was over three times the legal limit to drive.  Of significance, there were no defensive wounds found on the victim.  As the Crown says, it is proper to infer that the victim was in no position to defend himself, due to the unexpected speed of the attack and his extremely intoxicated state.  As to the offending itself, I see no mitigating factors.

[11]     In terms of your personal mitigating factors, there is the fact that you have a long list of previous convictions.  While I accept most of those relate to dishonesty, the two most recent were for violence: male assaults female and assault with intent to injure.  Indeed, s9(1)(c) of the Sentencing Act comes into play because at the time you had been released from a short term of imprisonment.  This was an early release, and you were still a sentenced prisoner on your most recent violent offending.

[12]     Both the Crown and your counsel have submitted a mitigating factor that you have entered an early guilty plea and that you show genuine remorse, although it seems to me remorse, in the circumstances of a case such as this where death has ensued, can be of not great consequence in assessing a minimum term of imprisonment.

[13]     Counsel have referred to a number of comparable cases.  The varying facts and  backgrounds  of  offences  of  this  sort  make  a  comparative  exercise  not particularly helpful.  Your counsel has placed particular reliance on the sentencing of R v Maclaughlin HC AK CRI-2004-092-004430 11 October 2005, who violently assaulted an older person without provocation, where a minimum term of 11 years was imposed.

[14]     There are differences to that case.   Firstly, this took place in the victim’s home.  Secondly, a weapon was used, and there is the added element of the vicious slashing  of  the  face.     Thirdly,  although  the  victim  was  an  older  person  in Maclaughlin, and there was a significant age disparity, there is nothing to indicate in the sentencing notes that there was the level of vulnerability that is exhibited in this case.

[15]     It seems to me, to meet the requirements of s103 an appropriate minimum non-parole period, before taking into account the entry of your guilty plea, would be one of 13 years.   For your guilty plea, it seems to me appropriate to make an allowance of one year.

[16]     For  the  murder  of  Mr  Baker  you  are  sentenced  to  life  imprisonment. Pursuant to s103 of the Sentencing Act I order that you serve a minimum non-parole period of 12 years.

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor’s Office, Christchurch

Papprill Hadfield & Aldous, Christchurch