R v Dodds - [2024] NZHC 1419

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-090-001966

[2024] NZHC 1419

THE KING

v

ETHAN DANE DODDS

Hearing: 31 May 2024

Appearances:

B D Tantrum and C Purdon for Crown

A J Maxwell-Scott and S Shanahan for Defendant

Sentence:

31 May 2024

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Solicitors/counsel:
Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland Bloem & Associates/A J Maxwell-Scott, Auckland

R v ETHAN DODDS [2024] NZHC 1419 [31 May 2024]

[1] Mr Dodds, you appear for sentence having been found guilty by a jury on a charge of murder. Shortly prior to the commencement of the trial you entered a guilty plea to a charge of being in unlawful possession of a firearm.

[2] There is no dispute that you must receive a sentence of life imprisonment. The principal issue I am required to determine today is the length of the minimum term of imprisonment that you will be required to serve before being eligible to apply for parole.

Factual background

[3] I propose to sentence you on the basis of the facts as I find them to be, having been the Judge who presided over your trial.

[4] The victim of your offending was Mr Benjamin McIntosh. You knew who he was although it appears you had not met him before the events that led to his death on the morning of 3 June 2022.

[5] Mr McIntosh died after receiving a single gunshot wound that you inflicted on him using a .22 calibre rifle. The bullet initially entered his shoulder before leaving his upper torso and striking him in the head. It then lodged in his brain, causing a fatal injury.

[6] At the time you shot Mr McIntosh, he was seated in the driver’s seat of his vehicle. His vehicle was parked in the parking area at a park in West Auckland. Mr McIntosh had arrived there at about 7.50 am on 3 June 2022 in the belief that he was to sell to your co-defendant, Mr Julius Te Hivaka, a quantity of drugs. The evidence at trial confirms that Mr McIntosh was a relatively low-level drug dealer. However, in the hours before the events that led to his shooting, he had won a significant sum of money on a gaming machine. The evidence at trial satisfies me that you became aware of this at some stage during the previous evening. During this period, you and Mr Te Hivaka had spent a considerable amount of time in each other’s company and also in the company of your other co-defendant, Ms Tamirah Baker. Mr Te Hivaka and Ms Baker knew Mr McIntosh had won some money and I have no doubt that one of them gave you this information.

[7] A CCTV camera at your mother’s address captured you and Mr Te Hivaka returning to your mother’s address in Hillsborough at 5.18 am on 3 June 2022. You then spent approximately an hour at that…

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 Dodds

Details

AGLC: R v Dodds [2024] NZHC 1419
Case: [2024] NZHC 1419
Decision Date: 31 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of The King v Ethan Dane Dodds involves the sentencing of Dodds for a murder conviction and unlawful possession of a firearm. The central issue for the court was to determine the minimum term of imprisonment Dodds must serve before becoming eligible for parole. The court accepted that Dodds must receive a life sentence due to the murder conviction, but the focus was on the length of the minimum term. The factual background revealed that Dodds, along with co-defendants, planned to rob the victim, Benjamin McIntosh, who was expecting to sell drugs. Dodds shot McIntosh, resulting in his death. Despite Dodds' claims of the firearm being unloaded and his intent to merely scare McIntosh, the court found that Dodds took a loaded firearm to the park with the intention of using it during the robbery, and that he recklessly caused McIntosh's death.

The court considered the applicability of Section 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002, which mandates a minimum term of imprisonment of at least 17 years for certain serious offences. The Crown argued that the murder occurred while Dodds was committing another serious offence, engaging Section 104(1)(d). The court accepted this argument but determined that imposing a 17-year minimum term would be manifestly unjust, given the mitigating factors and the nature of the offence as reckless rather than premeditated. After considering various sentencing authorities and the specifics of Dodds' case, the court concluded that a starting point of 13.5 years imprisonment was appropriate, reduced by 18 months for mitigating factors, resulting in a minimum term of 12 years.

In conclusion, Dodds was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, with a minimum term of 12 years before parole eligibility, and two years imprisonment for unlawful possession of a firearm, to be served concurrently.

Orders