Legal Research
Cases
R v Jefferies

R v Jefferies

Case [2018] NZHC 2363 7 September 2018

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Sentencing

Victim Impact Statement

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2017-019-3773

[2018] NZHC 2363

THE QUEEN

v

CORY SCOTT JEFFERIES

Hearing: 7 September 2018

Counsel:

JN Foster for Crown

T Sutcliffe for defendant

Sentenced:

7 September 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF FITZGERALD J

Solicitors: Almao Douch, Hamilton To: T Sutcliffe, Hamilton

R v Jefferies [2018] NZHC 2363 [7 September 2018]

Introduction

[1] Mr Jefferies, you appear for sentence having been convicted by a jury of the murder of Kim Richmond, your former partner of some 26 years.

[2] As you are no doubt aware, and I am sure Mr Sutcliffe has explained to you, the sentence I must impose for murder is life imprisonment, unless I consider it would be manifestly unjust to do so.1 I should say now that neither the Crown nor the defence have suggested it would be manifestly unjust for a sentence of life imprisonment to be imposed in this case. And I agree. I therefore will be sentencing you to life imprisonment today. But as you and those present here today will have heard, I must also consider what minimum period of imprisonment you should serve as a part of that life sentence.

Your offending

[3] Before I turn to the facts of your offending, it is appropriate to observe at the outset that this offending has been tragic for all involved. Not only for Ms Richmond herself, but your three children, Ms Richmond’s parents and other members of her family, and the broader community in which you and Ms Richmond lived. So too, I am sure, for you and your family. You were in a relationship with Ms Richmond for 26 years. Your children are, I understand, now aged 10, 13 and 15. They have lost their mother and, in many ways, they have lost their father as well.

[4] I will now summarise the background to your offending, and I appreciate that this may be distressing to many here today, and indeed many already know much of what I am about to say. However, it is important that the public are aware of the basis upon which I will be sentencing you today.

[5] You killed Ms Richmond in the early hours of 31 July 2016, but it is necessary to briefly outline events leading to that date.

[6] Your relationship with Ms Richmond had been breaking down for some time, over the preceding several months. It seems she had formed a close relationship with

1 Sentencing Act 2002, s 102(1).

a neighbouring farmer, and your views as to the nature of that relationship clearly troubled you greatly. You have also mentioned in the pre-sentence report what you say were associated financial pressures from the falling milk pay-out and costs associated with a new farm. I am satisfied, however, that the primary issue which led to tensions between you and Ms Richmond was your knowledge of and views about her relationship with your neighbour. You perhaps saw…

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 Jefferies

Details

AGLC: R v Jefferies [2018] NZHC 2363
Case: [2018] NZHC 2363
Decision Date: 7 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jefferies involved the sentencing of Cory Scott Jefferies, who had been convicted of the murder of his former partner, Kim Richmond. The High Court of New Zealand, Hamilton Registry, presided over by Justice Fitzgerald, sentenced Jefferies to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 11 years. The court considered various factors, including the breach of trust, the callous treatment of the victim's body, and the concealment of the crime, which led to the imposition of a minimum period of imprisonment. Jefferies' previous good character and the time spent on electronically-monitored bail resulted in a one-year reduction from the starting point of 12 years. The court concluded that Jefferies' actions, while tragic, did not warrant a sentence higher than those of comparable cases, leading to the final sentence of life imprisonment with an 11-year non-parole period.

The legal issues in this case centred on determining the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment for Jefferies, given the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case. The court considered the nature of the offence, the relationship between the offender and the victim, and the steps taken to conceal the crime. The court also assessed the mitigating factors, including Jefferies' previous good character and the time spent on electronically-monitored bail. The final decision hinged on balancing these factors to ensure that the sentence was just and appropriate in the circumstances.

Justice Fitzgerald's reasoning was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and the relevant legal principles. The court determined that the aggravating factors, such as the breach of trust and the callous treatment of the victim's body, warranted a higher minimum period of imprisonment. However, the mitigating factors, such as Jefferies' previous good character and the time spent on electronically-monitored bail, resulted in a reduction from the starting point of 12 years. The final sentence of life imprisonment with an 11-year non-parole period was considered appropriate, taking into account the unique circumstances of the case and the need for consistency in sentencing.

The final orders in the case were that Cory Scott Jefferies was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Kim Richmond, with a minimum non-parole period of 11 years. This sentence reflects the court's consideration of the aggravating and mitigating factors, as well as the need to hold Jefferies accountable for his actions and to provide deterrence and protection for the community.

Orders