R v Edmonds

[2015] NZHC 3254

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-090-006472 [2015] NZHC 3254

THE QUEEN

v

MATTHEW BRIAN EDMONDS

Hearing:	16 December 2015
Appearances:	A M McClintock and B Finn for Crown M Wharepouri for Defendant
Sentenced:	16 December 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors:           Crown Solicitor, Auckland

Copy to:            S J Lance & M Wharepouri, Auckland

R v EDMONDS [2015] NZHC 3254 [16 December 2015]

[1]      Matthew Edmonds, you are for sentence in this Court on two charges.  You pleaded guilty to a charge of male assaults female relating to an assault on Ms Anneta Knott and, following a jury trial, you were found guilty of the manslaughter of Peter Bettink.  The maximum sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment.  I have previously given you a first strike warning as required by law.

The charges

[2]      The situation you find yourself in and Mr Bettink’s death both arise out of your relationship with Ms Knott.

[3]      You and Ms Knott were initially neighbours in Auckland.  Her young sons would come to your place and from time to time you shared a bar-b-que meal.  That changed in about mid to late 2011 when you and your wife separated and you moved in with Ms Knott and her two sons.  Ms Knott maintained you were a boarder only but accepted during her evidence that you and she had sexual relations on a number of occasions.   It is clear from the evidence that you became infatuated with Ms Knott.  You wanted a full time and long term relationship with her.  You did also develop a bond with her children.

[4]      It seems that Ms Knott’s interest in any relationship with you was dependent on your financial situation.  In late 2013 and early 2014 your financial position deteriorated to the extent you had to sell a number of items of equipment you needed for your work.   In about April 2014 you moved to Whanganui to live with your mother.  From then until November 2014 you regularly sent most of your wages to Ms Knott or for her use.  In the six month period from May to November 2014 you sent over $13,500 to her for her use.  You even borrowed $2,000 from your ill grandmother to send Ms Knott.  It appears that at least some of the money you provided Ms Knott was used by her to purchase methamphetamine and to sustain her gambling habit.

[5]      Your obsession with Ms Knott is apparent from the number and content of the text messages you sent her and the telephone messages you left for her.  Ms Knott very rarely responded to you and often only when you were questioning whether to continue to put money into her account or her son’s account for her benefit.  In April

matters between you had reached the stage where you sent a text saying “hope ur happy now you took my heart my soul I am dead now you murderer RIP MATT EDMONDS” and you scratched a message “RIP Matt” into the car which you had bought her or guaranteed the payments of.

[6]      Despite that, you continued to send money to Ms Knott.  You had in your mind a hope and expectation that Ms Knott and her children would move to be with you in Whanganui at the end of the school year.

[7]      It seems clear from the evidence that Ms Knott had no intention of doing that. In fact she had commenced a relationship with the deceased, Mr Bettink without telling you.

[8]      Matters came to a head on 6 November 2014.  When you had difficulty contacting Ms Knott that day you decided to travel to Auckland to see her.   You drove from Whanganui to Auckland.  When you arrived at her home Ms Knott was not there.  Mr Bettink answered the door.  It very quickly became apparent to both you and him that Ms Knott had failed to explain the full details of her relationship with you to him and she had certainly not mentioned Mr Bettink to you.  Each of you considered yourselves to be in a serious domestic relationship with Ms Knott.

[9]      Despite that you and he sat down, had a cup of coffee and discussed matters in an apparently reasonable way.

[10]     Unfortunately that relatively calm situation broke down entirely when Ms Knott arrived home in a car that Mr Bettink had apparently bought her.  When you confronted Ms Knott and asked her about the car and Mr Bettink and your gear she swore at you and told you in no uncertain terms to go away.  You argued with her. When it became apparent or appeared to you she was going to walk away rather than stay and answer your questions you became frustrated and lashed out, pushing her. It was a hard push that caused her to fall forwards onto the ground.  She hit the concrete with her hand and chin.   That led to the charge of male assaults female. You admitted that charge at the outset of your trial.

[11]     On seeing you assault Ms Knott, Mr Bettink came towards you.  You said in your statement to the police that he tried to punch you.  None of the other witnesses saw that.  I consider that he would have approached you when he saw you push Ms Knott to the ground and may have raised his hand towards you in some way.  That would just be a natural reaction of a person in that situation.  In any event you turned on him and at that stage attacked him.  You punched him to his head and face.  In your police interview you said you punched him two or three times at about half strength. The pathologist, Dr Fintan Garavan’s evidence, satisfies me that you hit Mr Bettink many more times than only two or three, and with much more force than you were prepared to admit to.  Your attack knocked him to the ground.  You continued punching him to the face and head while he was on the ground.  The blood splatter from the punches was spread over a number of objects around the scene.   By punching him in that way you caused severe damage to Mr Bettink’s face and head.

[12]     Apart from the general bruising to parts of his body, explainable by contact with the ground, and external bruising and lacerations caused to his face by your assault, the autopsy confirmed a number of internal fractures to the orbit area, cheek bone and most importantly a Le Fort transverse fracture, which had effectively split the front of Mr Bettink’s skull into two parts.

[13]     While it was a savage attack I accept on the basis of the evidence I have heard that you did not use anything other than your fists in the attack on him. Almost immediately after your attack on Mr Bettink, you left the scene.  You knew at that time you had caused him serious harm, because you spoke on the phone to a friend shortly afterwards and said words to the effect you had smacked him and f’ing killed him. You turned yourself in to the police shortly after returning to Whanganui.

[14]    Mr Edmonds, you are 43 years old.  You were raised by your parents in Whanganui and had a normal childhood.  You have a good relationship with your mother and siblings. Although you were married that relationship broke down due to your relationship with Ms Knott.

[15]     The pre-sentence report writer advises the Court you have attended Living

Without  Violence  programme  and  consider  the  sessions   helped   you.     You

participated well and openly in the sessions.   You have demonstrated insight into your behaviour and continuously acknowledge your actions have led to the loss of Mr Bettink’s life.  You have participated in other positive steps as counsel has outlined and I accept that.  You expressed remorse throughout the interview with the probation officer and indeed in your interview with the police you expressed sorrow and remorse at Mr Bettink’s death.  Your remorse is assessed by the experienced probation officer as genuine.  You are aware of the impact of your actions, not only on you but also on your family and importantly on the family of the deceased Mr Bettink.

[16]     You have a good deal of support with your family and with people you have worked with and it is apparent you are a good worker, as the references you have provided attest.  As your counsel has said you have been a contributing member of society.

[17]     In  sentencing  you  I  am  required  to  take  account  of  the  purposes  and principles of the Sentencing Act 2002.  In this case the particularly relevant purposes are those of denunciation and deterrence.  Violence in a domestic setting where emotions run high cannot be tolerated.  The Court must mark its disapproval of such behaviour.

[18]     The relevant principles are your culpability in this incident, the seriousness of the offence, and the effect on the victims of the offending, particularly those with close relationships to Mr Bettink.   You have heard this morning the effect your actions have had on Mr Bettink’s family and will continue to have on them.  The sentence I impose should also be consistent with other relevant sentences and both counsel for the Crown and your counsel Mr Lance has provided the Court with a

number of authorities I have considered.1

1      R v Taueki [2005] 3 NZLR 372 (CA); R v Wairau [2015] NZCA 215; Hamidzadeh v R [2012] NZCA 550, [2013] 1 NZLR 369; R v Clinton [2013] QB 1; R v Edwards [2005] 2 NZLR 709 (CA); R v Tai [2010] NZCA 598; R v Te Pana [2014] NZCA 55; R v Rangi [2015] NZHC

1879;  R v Hessell [2011] 1 NZLR 607, (2010) 24 CRNZ 966 (SC); Murray v R [2013] NZCA
177;   Kepu v R [2011] NZCA 104; and R v Paku HC Auckland CRI-2005-019-006408, 7
September 2006.

[19]     The Crown submit a starting point of eight to nine years’ imprisonment is appropriate, allowing for mitigating factors of 15-20 per cent, which would lead to an end sentence between six and a half to seven and a half years.

[20]     Your counsel submits a starting point towards six years with a reduction for your intimated guilty plea and credit for remorse, good character and prospects of rehabilitation of about a third is appropriate.  That would lead to an end sentence of between three and a half to four years.

[21]     I  take  the  manslaughter  as  the  lead  charge.     There  is  no  tariff  for manslaughter.  Your assault on Mr Bettink was a serious and ongoing one.  While as I have said I accept it was restricted to the use of your fists, it was nevertheless a violent and sustained attack to his face and head which involved several blows to his face and head causing the severe damage to him I have referred to and which ultimately led to his death.  While Mr Bettink suffered from a medical condition discovered after his death, Dr Garavan’s opinion was that that had nothing to do with his death.

[22]     In the case of a serious ongoing assault such as this, the Court of Appeal have confirmed the Taueki guidelines can be relevant.2    In the present case, the extreme violence, attack to the head, the continued assault while Mr Bettink was on the ground and in a vulnerable state and the impact on the victims support a starting point towards the top end of band 2 in that case.   In R v Tai the Court of Appeal considered seven to eight years could not have been challenged.  As I have said I have had regard to the other cases that have been cited by counsel. I make it clear that I reject any suggestion that one punch manslaughter cases have any relevance to

this case. This was a serious ongoing attack.

[23]     I should also record I do not consider s 9(2)(c) of the Sentencing Act applies to your attack on Mr Bettink.  Nothing he did provoked you.  Ms Knott may have provoked you, but Mr Bettink did not.  You unleashed your frustrations at Ms Knott on him.  What can be said is that your attack was obviously not planned at all, it was a spontaneous reaction to the situation you found yourself in.

[24]     Having regard to the authorities and testing it by reference to the bands in R v Taueki3 I take as a starting point seven years, nine months imprisonment.  For the separate assault on Ms Knott there must be an uplift of three months’ imprisonment. It would have been more, up to six or eight months but for the provocation attributable to her and the need to consider totality.

[25]    There are no personal aggravating factors.  While you do have a previous conviction for assault it is over 16 years ago.   However, nor are you entitled to a credit for good character, given those earlier convictions.

[26]     There are a number of personal mitigating factors.  I accept that you are truly remorseful and regretted your attack almost as soon as the incident was over.  You accepted responsibility for Mr Bettink’s death at an early stage, albeit you did downplay the attack.  You turned yourself in to the police and accepted you had assaulted Mr Bettink.

[27]   Counsel have discussed a reduction for your offer to plead guilty to manslaughter earlier this year.  That is relevant, but I accept it was proper for the Crown to continue with the charge of murder on the basis of the medical evidence. At no stage did you plead guilty to manslaughter, although you did concede it in counsel’s opening.  On the evidence before the Court you were always going to be found guilty of manslaughter.   The Crown case against you for that was overwhelming.

[28]     I consider that rather than categorise the reduction due to you for that as a guilty plea credit, it may be better analysed as a substantial credit for your early acceptance of your culpability for Mr Bettink’s death and as further confirmation of your remorse.  However whether it is analysed that way, or as equivalent to a guilty plea credit, the outcome is effectively the same.

[29]     The real factor in your favour is that, as I have said, from an early stage you accepted responsibility for what you had done and you did offer to plead to manslaughter.   You accepted your actions killed Mr Bettink and I accept you are

truly remorseful for the consequences of your actions that day. Against that as I say I have  to  balance  the  fact  that   the  case  against   you  for  manslaughter  was overwhelming.  To take account of those features a reduction from the starting point of around 20 per cent is appropriate.

[30]     That leads to an end sentence of six years, four months’ imprisonment.  The requirements for a minimum non-parole period are not met in this case.

[31]    Please stand.  Mr Edmonds for the manslaughter of Peter Bettink you are sentenced to imprisonment for six years, four months.  For the assault on Ms Knott you are sentenced to imprisonment for three months.  The sentences are concurrent.

Stand down.

Venning J