R v Findlay - [2017] NZHC 2551

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2016-012-000832 [2017] NZHC 2551

REGINA

v

STEPHEN FINDLAY

Hearing: 17 October 2017

Appearances:

R P Bates and C E R Power for the Crown
J M Ablett-Kerr QC and C J Medlicott for the Defendant

Date:

17 October 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF DUNNINGHAM J

Introduction

[1] Steven Findlay you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to the murder of Sharon Comerford on 7 March 2016.

Background to offending

[2] The circumstances in which this crime occurred can be traced back to when you moved to Seacliff, a small rural community some 29 kilometres from Dunedin, several years ago. You purchased a section adjacent to the victim’s house for
$22,000, which was your life savings, and you lived there in your house truck.

[3] Both you and the victim drank alcohol excessively resulting in numerous arguments between you.

R v Findlay [2017] NZHC 2551 [17 October 2017]

[4] You had told others that the victim was harassing you, shouting at you and would not leave you alone and that she was mad, crazy, driving you insane and that she deserved to die. You spoke to several people about killing the victim, but it seems that these threats were not taken seriously.

[5] Various events happened in February 2016 which exacerbated these tensions. You had lost your cell-phone and, on 8 February, you became aware that the victim had possession of it and she had been contacting a female friend of yours. You thought the victim had ruined your chances of starting a relationship with this person.

[6] On 18 February 2016 you contacted local police seeking a trespass order against the victim, although ultimately you did not proceed with that.

[7] On 20 February 2016 you sent several texts to the local police officer complaining of numerous abusive texts from the victim and police spoke with her. She acknowledged that she had done a “stupid thing” after being handed your lost cell-phone and she said she had sent texts to people in your contact list to let them know what you are really like.

[8] On 26 February 2016 you again telephoned the police and said you had trespassed the victim and that you had had six years of hell from the victim. You referred to losing your cell-phone and said that the victim had contacted a long term friend of yours. You said to the police operator that you had “just had enough”, that you were over it and that she had driven you “to the edge”.

[9] On the morning of 7 March 2016 at about 10.00 am you walked several kilometres to a store at Karitane where you purchased a cask of wine. You then walked home to Seacliff. That afternoon you texted the local police officer again complaining about the victim, saying that she had “shaved me very close with her vehicle while I was walking home” and that…

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 Findlay

Details

AGLC: R v Findlay [2017] NZHC 2551
Case: [2017] NZHC 2551
Decision Date: 17 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Steven Findlay was sentenced by the High Court of New Zealand in Dunedin after pleading guilty to the murder of Sharon Comerford. The case involved a long history of conflict between Findlay and Comerford, exacerbated by alcohol and culminating in a violent attack that resulted in Comerford's death. The court was required to decide whether section 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002 applied, which mandates a 17-year minimum imprisonment for murders with aggravating features, and whether a life sentence would be manifestly unjust.

The court found that section 104 applied due to the high level of brutality in the attack, which included multiple injuries inflicted on Comerford while she was likely unconscious. However, the court also considered mitigating factors such as Findlay's guilty plea, his inability to remember the events due to self-inflicted injuries, and the significant level of provocation he experienced from Comerford. The court concluded that the combination of these factors made a 17-year minimum imprisonment manifestly unjust, and thus sentenced Findlay to life imprisonment with an 11-year minimum period before parole eligibility.

Orders