R v Eastham - [2013] NZHC 2792

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI 2012-091-2986 [2013] NZHC 2792

THE QUEEN

v

TRISTIM LEE EASTHAM

Hearing: 24 October 2013

Counsel: P K Feltham for Crown
I M Antunovic and C Parkin for Accused

Sentence: 24 October 2013

SENTENCE OF RONALD YOUNG J

[1] Before I sentence you Mr Eastham I want to just say some things to those who have come here today to be present at this sentencing. This is the second time this year that this Court has sentenced a young man for killing another young man from this area. The background information that I have been able to read over those sentencings shows a grossly excessive drinking and violent culture amongst a number of young men. Something is wrong in the community as small as this when this happens.

[2] Other serious assaults, maybe other killings are going to occur if this carries on. Already the lives of many young men have been ruined by these events. Two have died and two, after today, will have gone to prison for lengthy periods. And the
lives of many members of their families and friends have been permanently scared.

R v EASTHAM [2013] NZHC 2792 [24 October 2013]

[3] Time and again I have read the comment “someone should do something to stop this”. Well, there is no one, no one else who will do anything to stop this other than the community to which you all belong.

[4] Perhaps those families who have suffered these terrible tragedies can take the lead in this. What is needed, I suggest, is action not talk. I am sure that the police and the other social agencies in the area will be only too prepared to be part of real action to stop this culture of alcohol and violence affecting your young people.

[5] Mr Eastham. You have pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The events which gave rise to the killing of Shaun Strongman-Lintern occurred on 14 September 2012 within the Kapiti lights area in Paraparaumu.

[6] You and others it seems went to an outdoor smoking area at about half past

10 within the bar. About half an hour later Mr Strongman-Lintern came in. He also went out to the smoking area with a group of friends who had gathered there. An associate then became involved in an altercation with you.

[7] Mr Strongman-Lintern then seems to have approached you and the two of you became involved in a fight where punches were exchanged. Both of you were rejected from the area by the security staff. You were involved in another fight with an associate of the deceased. Seeing that fighting it seems Mr Strongman-Lintern became involved as well. Eventually the fight ended and you and your associates went back inside the bar and continued drinking.

[8] Sometime later you decided to leave and got into a vehicle. Mr Strongman-Lintern approached the vehicle and pointed through the window at you. He then walked around to the front…

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 Eastham

Details

AGLC: R v Eastham [2013] NZHC 2792
Case: [2013] NZHC 2792
Decision Date: 24 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Eastham was heard before Justice Ronald Young in the High Court of New Zealand at the Wellington Registry. The accused, Tristim Lee Eastham, pleaded guilty to manslaughter following the death of Shaun Strongman-Lintern. The central issue was to determine the appropriate sentence for the manslaughter charge, taking into account various factors such as the circumstances of the killing, Eastham's guilty plea, and his criminal history.

The court considered the Crown's submission for a sentence starting at seven to eight years' imprisonment, factoring in the use of a weapon and Eastham's attempt to conceal it post-incident. Additionally, the Crown argued for a deduction for Eastham's late guilty plea, estimated at no more than 10%. In contrast, Eastham's counsel argued for a more substantial deduction of 25% due to the plea and the mitigating circumstances surrounding the assault. The court also weighed the impact on Strongman-Lintern's family and friends, as highlighted in the victim impact statements.

Justice Young concluded that the appropriate starting point for the sentence was seven years' imprisonment. He rejected any increase for Eastham's past convictions, finding they did not warrant such a measure. Regarding the guilty plea, the court found a 15% deduction appropriate, acknowledging the delay but considering the significant benefit to the Crown. Consequently, Eastham was sentenced to five years and 11 months' imprisonment for manslaughter, with a minimum term of two years and 11 months. The court emphasised the necessity for denunciation and deterrence concerning the use of knives in public.

Orders