[1] Ms Crook, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to two charges, one of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to injure and one of being an accessory after the fact to murder. The maximum penalty for each crime is seven years’ imprisonment.1 The pleas were entered on 16 December 2015.

Facts

[2] The offending stems from an incident which occurred on 27 November 2014. The victim, Mr Matthew Stevens, was known to you, and to your two co-offenders Mr Wilkie-Morris and Mr Wilton.

[3] You lived with Mr Wilkie-Morris in Lower Hutt, with your three children. On that day, you began messaging the victim over Facebook at around 6pm and encouraged him to come to your house for drinks. He expressed concerns regarding his safety, as Mr Wilkie-Morris had made threats toward him in the past. You then falsely informed him that your partner was out of town, and that you were alone at your house.

[4] During this period, Mr Wilkie-Morris and Mr Wilton left the house and began driving around Lower Hutt. You informed them via text and phone calls as to the victim’s whereabouts as he messaged you through the night.

[5] The victim arrived at your house at 10.40pm. You took him upstairs into the bedroom which also served as a lounge and you began to drink together. You immediately informed Mr Wilkie-Morris and Mr Wilton that the victim was there, and both men arrived at the address soon after.

[6] They went upstairs, and a confrontation ensued with the victim. Mr Wilkie- Morris struck the victim with a hammer, on his head and right knee. Mr Wilton then
lunged at the victim with a knife and stabbed him twice in the chest and once in the

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 188(2) maximum penalty 7 years’ imprisonment and s 176, maximum
penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment.

lower back. The wounds were fatal, and the victim died in the bedroom. Your 10 year old daughter saw the body.

[7] The victim’s body was taken out of the house and placed into the rear of a van. Together, you cleaned the areas of the house where the victim’s blood had been spilt.

[8] You then drove the van, with Mr Wilkie-Morris, to an isolated point north of the Paekakariki Hill summit. Mr Wilton drove the victim’s vehicle behind you. The body was rolled off the face of the cliff, and the car was pushed over at the same place.

[9] The three of you then returned to your house where you continued to…

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 Crook

Details

AGLC: R v Crook [2016] NZHC 215
Case: [2016] NZHC 215
Decision Date: 18 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Crook before the High Court of New Zealand involved Ms Kelly Leigh Crook who was sentenced for her involvement in the grievous bodily harm and subsequent murder of Mr Matthew Stevens. The defendant had pleaded guilty to causing grievous bodily harm with intent to injure and being an accessory after the fact to murder. The maximum penalty for each crime was seven years’ imprisonment. The legal issues the court had to decide included the appropriate starting point for the sentences considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, and the extent of the defendant's culpability and remorse.

The court determined that the lead offence was the causing grievous bodily harm with intent to injure. The court found that the defendant's actions, which included luring the victim to the house under false pretences and facilitating the attack by her co-offenders, placed her offending at the upper end of band two of the guideline case of Nuku v R. The court adopted a starting point of two years eight months’ imprisonment for this charge. For the accessory after the fact to murder charge, the court considered the defendant's significant involvement in disposing of the body and evidence, and adopted a starting point of two years six months’ imprisonment. Taking into account the totality of the offending, the court applied a two-year uplift, resulting in a total starting point of four years and eight months’ imprisonment. The court recognised the defendant's genuine remorse, her challenging upbringing, and her engagement in psychological therapy as mitigating factors. The court also considered the 25 per cent reduction for the guilty plea. After applying these mitigating factors, the court sentenced the defendant to three years and four months’ imprisonment on the lead charge, with a concurrent sentence of 22 months on the accessory charge.

In conclusion, the court sentenced Ms Crook to three years and four months’ imprisonment on the charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to injure, with a concurrent sentence of 22 months on the accessory after the fact to murder charge. The court recognised the defendant's culpability and the gravity of the offending, but also took into account her remorse and personal history in determining the final sentence.

Orders