Legal Research
Cases
R v Gosset

R v Gosset

Case [2019] NZHC 1366 17 June 2019

Criminal Liability

Mens Rea & Intention

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Sentencing

Minimum Period of Imprisonment

Victim Impact Statements

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2017-009-8217

[2019] NZHC 1366

THE QUEEN

v

KASHA WILLIAM GOSSET CODY DEREK MARTIN

Hearing: 17 June 2019

Appearances:

P Currie and S Mallett for Crown

J Rapley QC and K Cook for Defendant Gosset K Beaton and J Lucas for Defendant Martin

Judgment:

17 June 2019

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MANDER J

[1] Mr Martin and Mr Gosset, you are for sentence this morning having each been found guilty by a jury of the murder of Bradley Lomax. You are also for sentence on various firearms and drugs charges.

Facts

[2] On the evening of 4 September 2017, both of you met Mr Lomax at a local cemetery on the pretext of some common endeavour relating to drugs – and, indeed, it was a pretext. In fact, you were armed with firearms and intended him harm. It appears both of you bore him some grudge as a result of your perceived treatment by him of his partner, although, both of you and Mr Lomax were involved in dealing in

R v GOSSET & Anor [2019] NZHC 1366 [17 June 2019]

methamphetamine. It cannot be discounted that the subsequent killing of Mr Lomax was also drug-related.

[3] You drove Mr Lomax to an isolated location adjacent to the Waimakariri River. You, Mr Martin, told the police that the purpose of this trip was to give Mr Lomax a “rark up”. However, you specifically armed yourself with a loaded shotgun prior to this trip, which you hid from Mr Lomax in the vehicle, but was immediately accessible to you. By your own admission, you were the first to shoot him with that weapon after Mr Lomax exited the vehicle. Your claim that the shotgun went off accidentally was established at trial to be demonstrably false.

[4] You, Mr Gosset, admitted to the police that you knew it would be a “one-way trip” for Mr Lomax, and that it was you who identified the secluded place where he would be killed. Mr Martin, you told police that immediately prior to embarking on this mission Mr Gosset said in your presence that he was going to kill Mr Lomax. You knew Mr Gosset was unpredictable and erratic and I reject your claim that you did not know what was going to happen to Mr Lomax that night or that you thought Mr [Gosset] was joking.

[5] Apart from the first shot to Mr Lomax’s knee, it is not clear on the available evidence who fired the other shots, or in what order. You, Mr Martin, were armed with the loaded sawn-off double-barrelled shotgun and knew Mr Gosset was carrying a cutdown semi-automatic .22 rifle. Mr Lomax, of course, was unarmed. A second shotgun blast was inflicted to Mr Lomax’s chest. At some stage the shotgun must have been reloaded because Mr Lomax was shot with that weapon from close range while he was lying on the ground. Each…

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 Gosset

Details

AGLC: R v Gosset [2019] NZHC 1366
Case: [2019] NZHC 1366
Decision Date: 17 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Mander J delivered a judgment on sentencing for Kasha William Gosset and Cody Derek Martin, who were found guilty of the murder of Bradley Lomax. The legal issues involved determining the appropriate sentence for the murder, considering factors such as the level of planning, brutality, and callousness, as well as the defendants' criminal histories and mental health conditions. The court had to decide whether the murder qualified for a minimum term of imprisonment of at least 17 years, as well as the length of the minimum term for each defendant.

The court found that the murder involved a degree of planning and premeditation, and was executed in a brutal and callous manner. However, it did not meet the statutory criteria for a minimum term of at least 17 years. The court imposed a minimum term of 16.5 years for Martin and 17.5 years for Gosset, taking into account the aggravating factors and the defendants' criminal histories. The court also considered the defendants' possession of firearms and drugs, as well as Gosset's mental health history. The court did not grant any discount for remorse, as both defendants continued to deny responsibility for the murder.

The final orders of the court were that Gosset be sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 17.5 years for the murder, and concurrent terms of imprisonment for possessing firearms, ammunition, and methamphetamine. Martin was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 16.5 years for the murder, and concurrent terms of imprisonment for possessing firearms and ammunition. Both defendants received a strike warning under the three strikes legislation.

Orders