Legal Research
Cases
R v Gosnell

R v Gosnell

Case [2013] NZHC 1313 5 June 2013

Minimum Period of Imprisonment

Three Strikes Legislation

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ALL MR GOSNELL’S REFERENCES TO, AND DESCRIPTION OF,
MR RUANE ARE SUPPRESSED UNTIL AN APPEAL IS HEARD. IF THERE IS NO APPEAL THIS SUPPRESSION ORDER WILL BECOME PERMANENT.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY
CRI-2011-009-014294 [2013] NZHC 1313
THE QUEEN

v

GAVIN JOHN GOSNELL

Hearing: 5 June 2013

Appearances:

B Hawes for Crown
C M Ruane as Amicus
Prisoner represents himself

Judgment:

5 June 2013

SENTENCE OF CHISHOLM J

[1] Gavin Gosnell, at trial a jury found you guilty of murdering Hayden Miles on

22 August 2011. You had proffered a plea of guilty to manslaughter but the jury decided that it was murder. Earlier you had pleaded guilty to a charge of causing indignities to Mr Miles’ body. You now appear for sentence.

[2] I should record that this morning there were unexpected developments. You indicated that you wished to dismiss your lawyer, Mr Ruane, and having heard that request I accepted that you were entitled to do so. But I then appointed him as amicus. As a result of that development I have heard this morning from both
Mr Ruane and you (by way of a letter that you have read to the Court).

R v GAVIN JOHN GOSNELL [2013] NZHC 1313 [5 June 2013]

[3] In your letter to the Court you have indicated that you intend to appeal, which is, of course, your right. You have advanced criticism of Mr Ruane which I have suppressed in the terms I have already announced. You have also referred to other matters that I do not need to mention at this stage.

Facts

[4] As far as the facts are concerned, I have to say to the family and friends that it is unfortunately necessary during a sentencing process such as this for me to go into the facts again. I know that this means that you will be re-living not only the horror of the murder itself but also the trial. Unfortunately this is unavoidable.

[5] Hayden Miles was a friend of Nicolette Vaux-Phillips who was your then partner. Hayden was 15 years of age.

[6] Late on the afternoon of 22 August 2011 the three of you had been drinking at your flat. A decision was made to go into the village and Hayden was to obtain liquor from Countdown. After he obtained the liquor he was robbed of his ipod and cell phone by a third person. You ended up with the cell phone, and you had pointed out Hayden to the person who robbed him.

[7] Fortunately at that time Hayden’s injuries from the robbery were not severe, but he was obviously highly distressed. Through the goodwill of a citizen he was able to borrow her cell phone and ring his mother in a very distressed state.

[8] Tragically he then went back to your flat. You and Ms Vaux-Phillips were drinking, and he joined you. At one point you said to him something to the effect that he should not be…

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 Gosnell

Details

AGLC: R v Gosnell [2013] NZHC 1313
Case: [2013] NZHC 1313
Decision Date: 5 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gavin Gosnell was found guilty of the murder of Hayden Miles by a jury, but had pleaded guilty to the charge of causing indignities to Hayden's body. Gosnell had also dismissed his lawyer, C M Ruane, but the Court appointed Ruane as an amicus. Gosnell wished to appeal, which the Court accepted was his right. The sentencing issues the Court had to determine were whether the murder was committed with high brutality, cruelty, depravity or callousness, whether it was committed against a particularly vulnerable victim, and whether the desecration of Hayden's body constituted an exceptional circumstance warranting an increased minimum period of imprisonment.

The Court found that the murder was committed with a high level of brutality, cruelty, depravity and callousness, as the attack was prolonged, violent and targeted Hayden's head. The Court also found Hayden to be a particularly vulnerable victim due to his age. Finally, the Court found the desecration of Hayden's body to be an exceptional circumstance warranting an increased minimum period of imprisonment. Therefore, the Court imposed a life sentence for the murder of Hayden Miles, and a one-year sentence for causing indignities to his body, with a minimum period of 18 years imprisonment. Gosnell was also issued a warning under the three strikes legislation for future serious violent convictions.

Gosnell was subject to the three strikes legislation and was given a first warning under the legislation. If Gosnell is convicted of any serious violent offence other than murder after this warning, and if a Judge imposes a sentence of imprisonment, then Gosnell will serve that sentence without parole or early release. If Gosnell is convicted of murder after this warning then he must be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole unless it would be manifestly unjust to do so. In that event the Judge must sentence Gosnell to a minimum term of imprisonment.

Orders