R v Gottermeyer - [2013] NZHC 2599

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF WITNESS/VICTIM/CONNECTED PERSON(S) PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2012-009-7705
[2013] NZHC 2599

THE QUEEN

v

PAUL ANDREW GOTTERMEYER

Hearing:	4 October 2013
Appearances:	C J Lange and A M S Williams for Crown A S Greig for Prisoner
Judgment:	4 October 2013

SENTENCING OF FOGARTY J

[1] Paul Andrew Gottermeyer, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of your separated wife.

[2] On the 22nd of November 2012, I sentenced you to life imprisonment.

[3] At the time of sentencing you to life, I described the crime as “a horrible attack of the utmost gravity”. In the course of an argument you attacked her with a knife, causing 12 wounds to her head, throat, chest, back and hands. There was a large complex cutting wound across the right side and central throat. The surface characteristics of which indicated that more than one cutting stroke was required. There were stab wounds both to the chest and to the back.

R v GOTTERMEYER [2013] NZHC 2599 [4 October 2013]

[4] You committed that crime when you were sane. You knew the difference between right and wrong. You were responsible for your actions. You have appropriately acknowledged your personal responsibility today, when speaking to the family at the end of the hearing – or the two families, I should say, the family of the deceased and your family.

[5] All civilised societies distinguish between the gravity of a crime and the blameworthiness of the offender. That distinction is contained in the first line of s 8, one of the many sections guiding the Court as to the sentence I impose. Sections guiding the Court here are, for the record, sections 7, 8, 9, 102, 103 and 104. I have read all those, all the provisions in those sections before reaching my judgment as to the sentence that should be imposed on you, today.

[6] Going back to the 22nd of November last year, where I sentenced you to life imprisonment. I was at that time, and spoke about, the difference in law between the gravity of the offending from the degree of blameworthiness of the offender. I decided it was not possible to resolve the issue of your blameworthiness by relying on the clinical report that you were not insane. I was aware by that time, of course,
of your admission as a patient to Hillmorton Hospital by your wife, the victim, and that admission was on the 27th of November 2011, and of the record made at the time that you were displaying psychotic symptoms, as well as having a diagnosis of depression. I was aware of your release back into the community on the 13th of December 2011, and of the intensive supervision of you by two caregivers, one a psychiatrist, while you were an outpatient of Hillmorton Hospital, continuing to the day before this crime.

[7] Because…

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 Gottermeyer

Details

AGLC: R v Gottermeyer [2013] NZHC 2599
Case: [2013] NZHC 2599
Decision Date: 4 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, the case of R v Gottermeyer involved Paul Andrew Gottermeyer, who had pleaded guilty to the murder of his separated wife. The key legal issues were whether the court should impose a minimum term of imprisonment of 17 years or more under the Sentencing Act 2002 and whether Gottermeyer's mental illness mitigated his culpability. The court considered three expert reports on Gottermeyer's mental state at the time of the murder, which concluded that while he was suffering from a depressive illness, it was unlikely to have been the direct cause of the crime. The court also considered the principles set out in the Court of Appeal decision in The Queen v Williams, which emphasised a balanced approach to sentencing that takes into account both the gravity of the offence and the offender's culpability. The court concluded that imposing a 17-year minimum term would be manifestly unjust given Gottermeyer's lack of a violent criminal history and his mental illness. Instead, the court imposed a minimum term of imprisonment of 10 years.

Orders