[2] You are for sentence this morning for the manslaughter of Tony Lochhead. Manslaughter carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Your co-offender, Jason Baker, was convicted of murder at his trial last year and he was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years.

Factual background

[3] It is necessary that I set out the factual basis upon which I sentence you for the manslaughter of Mr Lochhead.

[4] On a Friday night in September 2013 you and Mr Baker drove to Rangiora. At around 9.15 pm you went to the address of Mr Lochhead and his brother, Peter.

R v INNES [2016] NZHC 1195 [3 June 2016]

The two of you had discussed obtaining drugs from this address. Your associate, Mr Baker, carried a hunting knife which you knew he had.

[5] You agreed on a plan. You would knock on the Lochheads’ door while Mr Baker hid outside in the bushes. The purpose of this plan was for you to lure the brothers out of the house.

[6] You knocked on the door and were invited inside on the pretext that you wished to purchase drugs. Having got both Peter and Tony Lochhead’s attention, you then exited the house and ran down the driveway towards the road.

[7] The Lochheads followed you outside onto the driveway. They could see you near the footpath, waving your arms around in what appears to have been an attempt by you to encourage them to follow you. While standing in the driveway, the Lochheads became aware of Mr Baker who had been hiding in a bush nearby.

[8] Mr Baker was known to the Lochheads. This was no doubt the reason why you approached the house alone. Concerned for their safety, the Lochheads rapidly returned to their flat. They were followed by Mr Baker who armed with the knife was demanding drugs. The Lochheads attempted to shut a lounge sliding door to prevent Mr Baker entering. A struggle ensued, with Mr Baker thrusting the knife through the partially open door, attempting to strike the Lochheads. Mr Baker was threatening the occupants, telling them he was going to stab them.

[9] It was during the course of this attack that Tony Lochhead received a fatal knife wound to his upper chest. Peter Lochhead also received cuts to his head and shoulder area and several nicks to the chest. Using a walking stick as a weapon, Peter Lochhead was finally able to strike Mr Baker’s hand causing him to drop his knife, and he fled from the address.

[10]…

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 Innes

Details

AGLC: R v Innes [2016] NZHC 1195
Case: [2016] NZHC 1195
Decision Date: 3 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Innes involves Shaun Robert Innes, who was sentenced for the manslaughter of Tony Lochhead. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand Christchurch Registry. Innes was sentenced on the basis that he had conspired with Jason Baker to obtain drugs from the Lochhead brothers. The conspiracy involved Innes luring the Lochhead brothers outside their flat, while Baker, who was armed with a knife, attempted to force his way into the flat. Innes did not participate in the violence but left Baker to carry out the attack, resulting in the death of Tony Lochhead.

The court had to decide the appropriate sentence for Innes, considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case. The aggravating factors included the dangerous nature of the plan, the use of a weapon, and the fact that the crime was drug-related. The mitigating factors included Innes' limited involvement in the actual violence, his demonstrated remorse, and his intention to participate in restorative justice. The court also took into account Innes' extensive criminal history, his drug addiction stemming from a 1994 car accident, and his supportive family environment.

Mander J determined a starting point of four and a half years imprisonment for Innes, acknowledging the rarity of a manslaughter conviction based on a drug-related plan without intended violence. After considering the mitigating factors, the court applied a 15% deduction for personal mitigating factors and a 25% reduction for Innes' guilty plea, resulting in a final sentence of two years and ten months imprisonment. The court also issued the "three strikes warning" to Innes, informing him of the severe consequences of future serious violent offences.

The final orders of the court were that Innes be sentenced to two years and ten months imprisonment for manslaughter, with no minimum period of imprisonment imposed. The court also issued the "three strikes warning" to Innes, highlighting the severe penalties he would face for any future serious violent offences.

Orders