Hearing: 7 November 2014

Appearances:

P A Currie for Crown
M J Knowles and AND Garrett for Mr Innes
G H Nation for Mr Baker

Judgment:

7 November 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] Mr Baker and Mr Innes, I enter convictions against both of you on charges of murder and aggravated wounding after having been found guilty by a jury on those charges. It is now my task to sentence you.

[2] Murder, as you will know, carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and the key consideration is normally what minimum term of imprisonment should be imposed before someone convicted of murder should be eligible to apply for parole. However, counsel for you, Mr Innes, has also argued that this is one of those rare cases where it would be manifestly unjust and that is a matter which I must also consider in this case today.

[3] The maximum sentence for the other charge of aggravated wounding is
14 years imprisonment, but as the sentence on that charge will be served concurrently with the sentence on the murder charge, I will not dwell much on that.

R v INNES & BAKER [2014] NZHC 2780 [7 November 2014]

Background facts

[4] The events which gave rise to these charges took place on Friday

13 September 2013. Now at the time you were both regular drug users, and you took drugs on that day. Early in the evening of that day you decided to travel to Rangiora where your two victims resided at a flat in White Street, Rangiora, and you went there for the purpose of robbing them of at least drugs and cash.

[5] Mr Baker, you were armed with a hunting knife, and you had shown that to Mr Innes while you were en route to the address. The victims were known to you Mr Baker, but as you had a falling out with one of them, it seems to have been the plan that Mr Innes would knock on the victim’s door while you, Mr Baker, hid in the bushes. I accept the Crown’s contention that it was for Mr Innes to entice the victims out of the flat onto the driveway where Mr Baker, armed with the knife, you would confront them.

[6] The occupants of the flat were, Mr Tony Lochhead, who was 51 years old and his brother Peter Lochhead, who was 54 years old. They were at home cooking a meal and watching television when you arrived a little after 9.00 pm. As per the plan, Mr Innes, knocked on the victim’s lounge door and it was answered by Tony Lochhead. Mr Innes, you were invited inside and you entered the lounge. On hearing you in the lounge, Mr Peter Lochhead, who had been in his bedroom walked out into the lounge and at that point you exited…

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 [2014] NZHC 2780
Case: [2014] NZHC 2780
Decision Date: 7 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved the sentencing of Shaun Robert Murray Innes and Jason William Baker, who were convicted of murder and aggravated wounding. The case was heard by Dunningham J at the Christchurch Registry of the High Court of New Zealand. The legal issues revolved around the appropriate sentences for the defendants, taking into account the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act, the aggravating and mitigating factors, and the specific provisions related to murder sentencing.

The court considered the aggravating factors of the crime, such as the use of a weapon, the degree of premeditation, and the significant loss to the victims. The court also took into account the defendants' personal circumstances, including their criminal history, drug addiction, and other mitigating factors. In particular, the court considered Innes's brain injury and limited involvement in the crime compared to Baker.

In determining the sentence for the murder charge, the court found that the circumstances met the criteria of Section 104 of the Sentencing Act, which requires a life sentence with a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years. However, the court also considered whether it would be manifestly unjust to impose this sentence. Ultimately, the court decided that a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years would be stern but not manifestly unjust.

For Innes, the court found that his culpability was significantly less than Baker's, and his personal circumstances warranted a sentence below the mandatory minimum. The court departed from Section 102 of the Sentencing Act and imposed a fixed term sentence of 10 years, without a minimum period of imprisonment.

The final orders of the court were that Baker was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years for the murder charge and five years for the aggravated robbery charge, to be served concurrently. Innes was sentenced to a fixed term of 10 years for the murder charge and three years for the aggravated robbery charge, to be served concurrently. The court also issued a three strikes warning to both defendants.

Orders