R v Davidson - [2012] NZHC 3448

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

CRI-2012-059-2436 [2012] NZHC 3448

THE QUEEN

v

BLAIR JOHN DAVIDSON

Hearing: 17 December 2012

Appearances: M J Thomas for the Crown
R Smith for the prisoner

Sentence: 17 December 2012

SENTENCING NOTES OF CLIFFORD J

[1] Mr Blair Davidson, you appear for sentencing today having pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of your friend, Mark Vanderley, on 29 April this year on Glenlappa Station.

[2] You shot and killed Mr Vanderley whilst you were out hunting together. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of one person by another where there is no murderous intent involved. So this is an accident. It is a tragic accident. It was contributed to by carelessness and by inappropriate shooting practices. As I will say, the presence of alcohol and shooting up on to the hill where you knew at least one person was in close proximity were serious departures from good hunting practice. But at the end of the day for everyone in the Courtroom this is a tragic accident, and we need to remember that it was an accident, serious though the conduct was that
gave rise to it.

R v DAVIDSON HC INV CRI-2012-059-2436 [17 December 2012]

[3] Your shooting was unlawful because you failed to perform your legal duty to use reasonable care with your firearm. By your guilty plea, you acknowledge that your conduct was a major departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person to whom that duty applies.

[4] The charge of manslaughter to which you have pleaded guilty is, therefore, inherently more serious than other charges you might have faced, such as careless use of a firearm causing death. That is reflected in the maximum penalty for manslaughter, which is life imprisonment. The offence of careless use of a firearm causing death, by contrast, attracts a maximum sentence of three years’ imprisonment. The difference is obvious.

[5] The sentence I am to impose on you today must reflect the seriousness of the offence you have admitted committing. So whilst I have said it was an accident, at the same time it was a tragic accident and is a tragedy for the family of the deceased particularly, it is a tragedy for you personally and it is also a tragedy for the deceased’s partner and a tragedy for your family. And everyone here in Court today is affected by that sadness.

Factual background

[6] The tragic events which have brought all of you here today are as follows.

[7] Mr Vanderley was an old friend of yours Mr Davidson. You had known each other since you were five or six years old. On 28 April this year you, Mr Vanderley and four other friends, were on a hunting party on Glenlappa Station in the high country of Northern Southland. You were staying in a musterer’s hut near the Station’s northern boundary. During the day you had hunted in various locations on Glenlappa, prior to returning to the hut…

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 Davidson

Details

AGLC: R v Davidson [2012] NZHC 3448
Case: [2012] NZHC 3448
Decision Date: 17 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Blair John Davidson, was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand, Invercargill Registry, for the manslaughter of his friend, Mark Vanderley, during a hunting trip on 29 April. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence for manslaughter, considering the mitigating and aggravating factors. The court identified the consumption of alcohol, inappropriate shooting practices, and failure to identify the target as significant aggravating factors. The mitigating factors included Davidson's good character, genuine remorse, and offer of reparation. The court decided on a starting point sentence of four and a half years, reduced by 20% for good character and remorse, and a further 25% for the early guilty plea, resulting in a final sentence of two years and six months imprisonment, along with a reparation payment of $10,000 to the victim's family.

Davidson, who was 25 years old and had no prior convictions, shot and killed Vanderley while they were hunting. The incident was attributed to carelessness and inappropriate shooting practices, particularly the consumption of alcohol and shooting up a hill where a person was in close proximity. The court emphasised the need to denounce the conduct and deter others from similar behaviour. The sentence was intended to hold Davidson accountable for the harm caused, promote a sense of responsibility, and provide for the interests of the victims. The court acknowledged the tragic nature of the incident but stressed the importance of imposing an appropriate sentence to address the seriousness of the offence.

Orders