ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS CONTAINED IN THIS JUDGMENT IN RELATION TO ANY OF THE VICTIMS’ MENTAL HEALTH, PSYCHOLOGICAL DIAGNOSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE OFFENDING PURSUANT TO S 205 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. PUBLICATION OR DISSEMINATION IN THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN OF THE CCTV FOOTAGE OF THE OFFENDING IS ALSO PROHIBITED. SEE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE
CRI-2021-012-821
[2022] NZHC 924
THE QUEEN
v
LUKE JAMES LAMBERT
Hearing:
3 May 2021
Appearances:
R D Smith and M Brosnan for Crown J A Westgate for Defendant
Judgment:
3 May 2022
SENTENCING REMARKS OF EATON J
R v LAMBERT [2022] NZHC 924 [3 May 2022]
[1] Firstly, I acknowledge the presence today of the victims of this offending, their support network, family, friends, any representatives of Countdown, management or employees, and any of the first responders who were involved in dealing with this offending.
[2]Mr Lambert you may be seated.
Introduction
[3] Mr Lambert, I am now going to impose sentence on you following your pleas of guilty and convictions in December last year on the four charges of attempted murder.
Strike warning
[4] Before I impose the sentence for your offending, I must give you what is called a strike warning. No doubt Mr Westgate has explained this to you. The warning is in these terms.
[5] Given your convictions for attempted murder, you are now subject to the three strikes law. I must give you a warning of the consequences of another serious violence conviction. You will also be given a written notice which contains a list of these “serious violent offences”.
(a)If you are convicted of any one or more serious violent offence other than murder committed after this warning and if a Judge imposes a sentence of imprisonment, then you will serve that sentence without parole or early release.
(b)If you are convicted of murder committed after this warning, then you must be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole unless it would be manifestly unjust to do so. In that event the Judge must sentence you to a minimum term of imprisonment.
[6]That is the strike warning.
[7] I am now going to deal with the facts of your offending. The facts are only too well known to your victims, to their families and to their work colleagues. They will be well known to you. But sentencing is a judicial function. It is required to be undertaken in a public court and transparency in cases of this nature is fundamental and so it is necessary for me to set out, in this Court, the factual basis upon which I fix the sentence that I am going to impose.
[8] I do just say to any of the victims or their families, if they prefer not to hear me detail the facts and the injuries that they suffered then they should not feel obliged to stay in the Court while I read that detail. If anybody…
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 Lambert
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Lambert [2022] NZHC 924
Case
[2022] NZHC 924
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The defendant, Luke James Lambert, was convicted on four counts of attempted murder and sentenced by the High Court of New Zealand in Dunedin. Lambert attacked four people with knives in a supermarket in Dunedin, New Zealand. The court heard victim impact statements that described the lasting physical and psychological trauma the victims suffered as a result of the attack. Lambert had limited mental health history and a limited criminal history, but had exhibited delusional thinking and violent fantasies in the lead up to the attack. The court determined that Lambert was not legally insane at the time of the attack. The court considered the totality principle, the aggravating factors of the crime, and mitigating factors including Lambert's mental health issues. The court sentenced Lambert to 13 years in prison for each count of attempted murder, to be served concurrently. The court also imposed a minimum non-parole period of 6.5 years and prohibited the publication of certain details of the attack.