R v Frost - [2021] NZHC 2450

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2021-043-98

[2021] NZHC 2450

THE QUEEN

v

NATHAN GORDON FROST

Hearing: 17 September 2021

Counsel:

J M Marinovich for Crown

P M Keegan and J M Woodcock for Mr Frost

Sentence:

17 September 2021

SENTENCING NOTES OF ELLIS J

[1] Mr Frost, there are a lot of things that I need to say before I get to final sentence; you can sit while I am talking, but I will get you to stand up at the end.

[2] Nathan Frost, you appear today for sentencing on two charges of murder. On 18 January 2021 you murdered your father, Stephen, and you murdered your half- brother, Regan. You pleaded guilty to those charges on 15 July.

[3] The sentence for murder is life imprisonment, unless such a sentence would be manifestly unjust. In your case, there is no suggestion that such a sentence would be unjust—so life imprisonment will be your sentence.

[4] The only question for me today is what minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) you should serve as a condition of that sentence. The MPI is the length of time

R v FROST [2021] NZHC 2450 [17 September 2021]

you must spend in prison before parole even becomes a possibility. I emphasise the word possibility because even after the expiry of the MPI you will only get parole if the Parole Board considers that is appropriate in terms of the risk that you pose.

[5] Although murder is always regarded as the most serious of crimes, the minimum period of imprisonment—the MPI—imposed in each case stands as a marker of the relative seriousness of a particular murder, compared with others.

[6] In order to determine the appropriate MPI in your case, Mr Frost, there are a number of things I must consider, and record. I need to begin by summarising what happened on 18 January this year.

The facts

[7] At that time, you were living with your father Stephen, your half-brother Regan who was 15, and your half-sister Grace, who was 14. In the early hours of the morning you were in your bedroom. You had been drinking excessively and were in a distressed state.

[8] It seems that at around 2.55 am, your father had heard you crying. He opened your bedroom door and went in, to see if you were okay. In you room was a large pipe wrench that you had taken there at some earlier time, with murder in mind. You struck your father multiple times in the head and arm. You broke his jaw in two places and knocked him unconscious. You continued to strike him with the wrench.

[9] You then unfolded the hunting knife with a 12 cm blade that you had bought not long before. You stabbed Stephen in the neck, fatally severing his carotid artery and jugular. Stephen died at the scene.

[10] Regan had overheard and overseen part of the…

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 Frost

Details

AGLC: R v Frost [2021] NZHC 2450
Case: [2021] NZHC 2450
Decision Date: 17 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Nathan Gordon Frost appeared for sentencing on charges of murdering his father, Stephen, and his half-brother, Regan. The court had to determine the minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) Frost should serve before parole could be considered. The primary legal issue was to establish the appropriate MPI for Frost's double murder, considering both aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court considered several factors in determining the appropriate MPI. Aggravating factors included the premeditated nature of the murders, their brutality, and the fact that Frost had killed two victims. The court noted the impulsive nature of the murders but emphasized the extensive planning and preparation involved. The court also highlighted the callousness and cruelty of the attacks, particularly on Regan, a 15-year-old who attempted to stop Frost from murdering his father. These factors led the court to establish a starting point for the MPI at 23 years.

The court then considered mitigating factors, including Frost's young age, lack of prior convictions, and early guilty plea. The court acknowledged Frost's mental health issues, though it noted that a clear diagnosis had not yet been established. The court concluded that a global discount of up to three years could be justified, resulting in an MPI of 20 years. The court found this MPI to be appropriate given the severity of the crimes and the need to hold Frost accountable.

The final orders were that Frost would serve two concurrent life sentences for the murders of Stephen and Regan, with a minimum period of imprisonment of 20 years before parole could be considered.

Orders