R v Eddy - [2014] NZHC 1543

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-092-16129 [2014] NZHC 1543

THE QUEEN

v

KARL EDDY

Appearances:
N R Williams and J Cairney for the Crown

M Dyhrberg and P Barraclough for the Accused

Sentence:

3 July 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF ELLIS J

Counsel/Solicitors:
N Williams, Meredith Connell, Auckland
J Cairney, Meredith Connel, Auckland
M J Dyhrberg, Barrister, Auckland
P Barraclough, Barrister, Auckland

R v EDDY [2014] NZHC 1543 [3 July 2014]

[1] Mr Eddy you are for sentence today having been found guilty by a jury of murdering Alicia McCallion on 12 December 2012.

[2] The sentence for murder, unless it would be manifestly unjust, is life imprisonment. In your case there is no suggestion that a sentence of life imprisonment would be unjust so that is the sentence that I will be imposing on you. But the question I must decide, and to which counsel’s submissions this morning have been directed, is what minimum period of imprisonment should be imposed as a condition of that sentence. But I emphasise that your sentence will be one of life imprisonment. The minimum term of imprisonment is the term that you must serve before you can be eligible for consideration for parole. It does not fix the term of your sentence.

[3] The minimum period of imprisonment I impose depends in large part upon the facts of the matter and so I need to summarise those first.

The facts

[4] You met Miss McCallion in 2010 and quickly formed a relationship with her. You moved in together and eventually ended up living with her in the flatette attached to her parents’ house in Papakura.

[5] I accept that before 12 December 2012 you did not physically hurt Miss McCallion but you were often angry and aggressive around her, you belittled her and she was scared of you. In November 2012 she had the courage to end the relationship and you moved out of the flatette and in with members of your family.

[6] I think at that point you believed or hoped that Miss McCallion would reconcile with you. In any event you desperately wanted to make things right between you and, to that end, you took steps to get a car and a job. You tried to give her a ring. You talked about attending an anger management course. You made excuses to see her. You texted her frequently. Although Miss McCallion was never rude, the tone and content of her texted replies to you was not encouraging.

[7] As it became clearer and clearer to you that she was not going to take you back, things took a more sinister turn. You engaged in what might be termed low- level stalking behaviour. Using a false name you threatened her on FaceBook.

[8] Things came to a head on 11 December. By then you had learned that you had not been successful in getting a job at Paper Reclaim where Miss McCallion worked. She had defriended you on…

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 Eddy

Details

AGLC: R v Eddy [2014] NZHC 1543
Case: [2014] NZHC 1543
Decision Date: 3 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Karl Eddy was convicted of murdering Alicia McCallion on December 12, 2012. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment before Eddy would be eligible for parole. Eddy had a history of violence and aggression, and the murder was carried out with a high level of brutality and callousness. The Crown argued that the murder involved calculated or lengthy planning, unlawful entry into or presence in a dwelling place, and was committed with a high level of brutality, cruelty, depravity, or callousness. The defence, however, contended that the minimum period of imprisonment should be 14 years, not 17.

The court considered the evidence and found that while there was some calculation involved in the murder, it did not reach the level of lengthy or calculated planning required to trigger the 17-year minimum period of imprisonment. The court also found that it was not clear whether Eddy's entry into or presence in Alicia's home was unlawful. However, the court emphasised that it was evident Eddy was not welcome in the home. Lastly, the court acknowledged the brutality and callousness of the murder but concluded that it did not reach the high degree required to trigger the 17-year minimum term. The court ultimately decided on a minimum term of imprisonment of 17 years, taking into account the gravity of the offence, Eddy's history of violence and non-compliance with community-based sentences, and the need to deter him and protect the community from future offending.

The final orders of the court were that Karl Eddy was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 17 years before he would be eligible for parole. The court hoped that Eddy would come to acknowledge the gravity of his actions and take responsibility for his crimes.

Orders