[1] Mr Everett, on 21 February 2018, a jury found you guilty of the manslaughter of your partner, Leeanne Hart, by your assault of her.1 I gave you a first strike warning at the time of your conviction. I am now going to sentence you on the jury’s manslaughter verdict.

[2] I have listened to what counsel had to say, both for you and for the Crown. There is little disagreement between them. The Crown recommends you be sentenced to seven to eight years’ imprisonment. Your counsel has recommended the marginally lower sentence of seven years.

[3] However, I am not bound by counsel’s recommendations. I must satisfy myself of the appropriate sentence for the gravity – or seriousness – of your offending, including your culpability – or responsibility – for it.

The facts of your offending

[4] Mr Everett, I first outline the facts of your offending.

[5] You had been in a relationship with Ms Hart for about three years. You were living together when the assault took place. Since about March 2016, you rented a small one-bedroom flat on a semi-rural property in Redvale, just north of Auckland. The flat adjoins the principal dwelling on the property, occupied by your landlords, Kenneth Rush and Louise Travis, and Ms Travis’ daughter. You and Ms Hart both had regular contact with Mr Rush and Ms Travis.

[6] At least by the time of your offending, your relationship with Ms Hart was not a happy one. You were both drinkers. Ms Hart rarely left home, and was often intoxicated and incapacitated. Although she had access to funds, which she provided you, she was reliant on you to bring food and alcohol home, and to prepare meals. You returned home after work from the pub most days, also intoxicated. Increasingly, your return heralded heated arguments with Ms Hart, clearly audible to your neighbours and others near your flat. Ms Travis’ daughter rode horses with friends outside your
flat, and they heard the arguments between you also.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 160(2)(a) and 171.

[7] Tensions between you and Ms Hart observably heightened in the days and weeks leading up to your assault on her on or about Saturday, 11 February 2017. At times that abuse became physical. In your police interview, leaning over the interviewing police officer, you demonstrated using both hands to slap Ms Hart’s head. You admitted disciplining her in that way, but said it was “not [a] full on bash session”. The pathologist called by…

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 Everett

Details

AGLC: R v Everett [2018] NZHC 468
Case: [2018] NZHC 468
Decision Date: 20 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Everett involved the sentencing of Kevin Leslie Everett for the manslaughter of his partner, Leeanne Hart, through assault. Everett was found guilty by a jury, and the sentencing hearing took place before Justice Jagose. The Crown recommended a sentence of seven to eight years' imprisonment, while Everett's counsel suggested a seven-year sentence. Justice Jagose set a starting point of seven and a half years' imprisonment, taking into account the aggravating factors of the crime, such as the seriousness of the injury, the attack on the victim's head, and Everett's callous indifference to Hart's condition. The court also considered Everett's history of domestic violence and alcohol abuse, which contributed to the uplift in the starting point. The final sentence imposed was a term of imprisonment of seven years and six months, with a minimum period of imprisonment of three years and nine months.

Justice Jagose emphasised the importance of a firm response to domestic violence and the need to protect the community. The court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing, including holding Everett accountable, denouncing the conduct, deterring similar offending, and protecting the community. The sentence also took into account the lack of personal mitigating factors, such as remorse or acceptance of responsibility, and Everett's criminal history. The court ultimately decided that Everett should serve at least half of the sentence before being eligible for parole, reflecting the seriousness of the crime and the need for punishment, denunciation, deterrence, and community protection.

Orders