R v Douthett - [2019] NZHC 2214

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2018-063-004251

[2019] NZHC 2214

THE QUEEN

v

MICHAEL EDWARD DOUTHETT

Hearing: 29 August 2019

Appearances:

A Gordon and G Banuelos for the Crown M Simpkins for the Defendant

Sentence:

29 August 2019

SENTENCING NOTES OF HINTON J

Solicitors:
Gordon Pilditch, Rotorua Lance Lawson, Rotorua

R v DOUTHETT [2019] NZHC 2214 [29 August 2019]

[1] Mr Douthett, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of murder1 and one charge of dangerous driving.2

[2] The events are tragic – you murdered your wife, Patricia Wallis, on 26 November 2018 and then set out, but failed, to kill yourself. As well as wiping out your wife’s life, you have inflicted immeasurable pain on your family and wider community. Your close friends and your family, including your four children, are all still very supportive of you. Trish’s sisters and close friends, quite understandably, are not.

[3] I wish to acknowledge, as counsel have, the presence in Court today of so many family members and friends, and to extend the Court’s greatest sympathy to you all. This is a very, very difficult time. It is a horrible thing that has happened.

Facts

[4] You and Trish were married for 20 years. In early 2018, you separated, and Trish moved out of the family farmhouse in Ngakuru. She was a passionate farmer and horse-rider, and returned to the farm three to four times a week to work with Jenny Edwards, running the farm. Before her death, you were in the process of dividing the relationship property. There was a tension around what was to happen to the farm.

[5] At 6.00 am on 26 November 2018, you were sitting at the dining-room table at home with a cup of coffee. Trish arrived at the house, put her gumboots on, and headed down to the milking shed to work.

[6] At around 6.30 am, your then-17-year-old son, Mark, left the house. After he left, you had a shower, got dressed, and took out a .22 bolt action rifle from the wardrobe. You loaded it with ammunition from a tin on the dresser and hid the rifle beneath the blankets on the bed.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 167(a).
2 Land Transport Act 1998, s 35(1)(b).

[7] You returned to the kitchen and made another cup of coffee. Trish returned from the milking shed and went into the office. You then got up from the table, retrieved the gun from the bedroom, and walked down the hallway to the office.

[8] Trish was sitting in the office. You aimed and fired two shots from the rifle at her head.

[9] You then dropped the gun in the hallway and immediately called the Police, telling them: “I have murdered my wife, I shot her”. You then abandoned the call, left the house, got into your car and drove towards Rotorua.

[10] On this drive, you attempted suicide twice. On State Highway…

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 Douthett

Details

AGLC: R v Douthett [2019] NZHC 2214
Case: [2019] NZHC 2214
Decision Date: 29 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of The Queen v Michael Edward Douthett involves the sentencing of Douthett for the murder of his wife, Patricia Wallis, and a charge of dangerous driving. Douthett pleaded guilty to one count of murder and one count of dangerous driving. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, including whether the statutory minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years should apply for the murder charge.

The central legal issue was the extent to which Douthett's mental illness should influence the sentencing. Douthett's defence argued that his severe mental illness significantly reduced his moral culpability, suggesting a reduction in the minimum period of imprisonment. In contrast, the Crown argued that while mental illness should be considered, it should not absolve Douthett of his responsibility for the murder. The court had to weigh these arguments against the principles of sentencing, particularly the need to hold Douthett accountable and to denounce the conduct.

The court concluded that Douthett's mental illness, while significant, did not negate his responsibility for the murder. It was acknowledged that his mental illness was a causative factor in the offending but did not excuse his actions. The court decided that the starting point for the minimum period of imprisonment should be 10 years. After considering all mitigating and aggravating factors, the court determined that a final minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years was appropriate. Douthett was sentenced to life imprisonment with a 10-year minimum period of imprisonment for the murder, disqualified from driving for six months for the dangerous driving charge, and ordered to pay reparation for damage to the logging truck.

Orders