R v Gleeson - [2012] NZHC 705

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2012-009-001663 [2012] NZHC 705

REGINA

v

CHRISTOPHER GLENN GLEESON

Hearing: 17 April 2012

Counsel: C J Lange and A Raj for Crown
C M Ruane for Prisoner

Judgment: 17 April 2012

SENTENCING REMARKS OF WHATA J

[1] Christopher Glenn Gleeson you have pleaded guilty to one count of murder. [2] The penalty for murder is life imprisonment.
Facts of offending

[3] In sentencing you I regret that I must retell the events, but it is my duty to do so.

[4] You do not dispute the police summary of facts. On 6 January 2012 you visited the home of Kenneth John Moore, the victim. Around lunch time you became involved in a disagreement with Mr Moore and as a result you left in order
to cool off. You walked to your home address about 8.4 kilometres away.

R V GLEESON HC CHCH CRI 2012-009-001663 [17 April 2012]

[5] Later that day you decided to return to the address to hurt the victim and make him suffer, like you say he had made you suffer in the last year. You planned to hit him around the head using a cricket bat. You carried out your plan. You walked back to Mr Moore’s home carrying your cricket bat and arrived there about
9 pm. After a short heated discussion you lifted the cricket bat and forcibly hit Mr Moore to the rear side of his head three times. As a result he fell face forward onto the carpet where you hit him once more to the head.

[6] Mr Moore was seriously injured, bleeding from his ear and mouth and breathing heavily. You then sat on the chair in the lounge for approximately half an hour before taking Mr Moore’s car and house keys and leaving the address in his vehicle.

[7] You tried to use Mr Moore’s EFTPOS card and then returned to Mr Moore’s home where you accessed the internet using Mr Moore’s computer. During the evening you then removed his 50 inch plasma television and the phone handset from the cordless phone, placing both in Mr Moore’s car. You drove to your home address where you removed the television and placed it in the lounge and then went to bed.

[8] On the following morning you returned to Mr Moore’s address. You went inside the house and found Mr Moore deceased in the same position he had been left in the night before. You made a number of telephone calls, including to an auto business, looking for a car battery for a second vehicle at the address. Later that morning you left in Mr Moore’s car and went to the Howzat Sports Centre. You dumped the bloodied cricket bat, two car seat covers and the victim’s wallet, minus his EFTPOS card, in a rubbish skip. You tried to use the EFTPOS card again and failed. You then returned to your home address and you were picked up by a…

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 Gleeson

Details

AGLC: R v Gleeson [2012] NZHC 705
Case: [2012] NZHC 705
Decision Date: 17 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Christopher Glenn Gleeson, the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of murder. The court was required to decide on the appropriate sentence, taking into account the nature of the crime, the circumstances of the offence, and the defendant's background. The court considered the aggravating factors such as the degree of premeditation, the use of a weapon, and the callous behaviour of the defendant after the murder. It also considered mitigating factors such as the defendant's early guilty plea and his remorse. The court determined that the circumstances of the offence warranted a starting point of 12 years imprisonment, but after applying the appropriate discounts for the early guilty plea and remorse, the court sentenced the defendant to a minimum of 11 years and 4 months imprisonment.

The court also took into account the impact of the murder on the victim's family and the community. The victim impact statements highlighted the profound grief and loss experienced by the victim's family and the community. The court acknowledged the brave statements made by the victims and the significant role the victim played in the lives of his family. The court considered the personal circumstances of the defendant, including his background, his relationship with the victim, and his sporting achievements. The court also considered the defendant's risk of reoffending and the desirability of consistency in sentencing. The court recognised the purposes of sentencing, including holding the defendant accountable for the harm caused, promoting a sense of responsibility, denouncing the conduct, and seeking to deter the defendant and others from committing similar offences.

Orders