R v Lamont HC Greymouth CRI 2009-018-702

[2010] NZHC 2287

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GREYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI-2009-018-000702

REGINA

v

PETER LAMONT

Hearing:         16 December 2010

Counsel:         L C Preston for Crown

D J Taffs and T K Stevens for Prisoner

Sentence:       16 December 2010

SENTENCE OF HON. JUSTICE FRENCH

Peter Lamont:

[1]      Following a plea of guilty you appear for sentence for the murder of your wife, Lindsay Jane Lamont.

Facts of the offending

[2]      The tragic events which have led to this morning’s sentencing took place on the evening of 4 July 2009 when you and Lindsay got into an argument over money matters and your late arrival home.  You had both been drinking, you since lunch time.  You were preparing food and had a kitchen knife in your hand.  Suddenly you

lashed out at Lindsay with the knife and stabbed her several times.  She fell to the

R V PETER LAMONT HC GRY CRI-2009-018-000702  16 December 2010

floor, bleeding heavily.  While she was lying there you continued stabbing her, using three different knives in the process.

[3]      During the attack you broke two of the knives, discarding the handle of one on the kitchen floor and the handle of the other you put in the kitchen sink.   The blade fragments remained embedded in Lindsay’s body.   A third knife was found with the blade bent at a 90 degree angle and unusable.   The forensic evidence suggests that on each occasion that a knife broke you went to a drawer in the kitchen to obtain a replacement and continued to stab her.

[4]      Lindsay  died  in  the  kitchen  from  what  the  pathologist  has  described  as “torrential internal and external blood loss arising from the multiple stab wounds to her head and neck”.  In total you inflicted 26 stab wounds, 23 strikes being directed at Lindsay’s head, neck and upper chest.

[5]      After the attack you went into the garage and, it seems, attempted to kill yourself by running the car with the doors closed.  However, this only resulted in your falling asleep.  When you awoke on the morning of 5 July you re-entered the house and saw what must have been an absolutely horrific sight, Lindsay’s bloodied body lying on the floor of the blood spattered kitchen.

[6]      You then attempted to kill yourself a second time, buying a clothesline from the supermarket and going to your business premises to hang yourself.

[7]      Following the failure of the second suicide attempt you then contacted your teenage step daughter and arranged to meet her at the police station.  Mercifully, she had been staying with friends.

[8]      At the police station you told her you had killed her mother.  You both then went inside the station where you made a full confession.

[9]      When asked for an explanation you stated you had snapped and a veil had descended over you.

[10]     Despite making a full confession you nevertheless pleaded not guilty and maintained that plea until only two weeks before the trial was due to start.   The explanation given for your change of plea is that it had become clear there was no psychiatric basis for a partial defence of provocation.

[11]     Such was your level of intoxication you claim to have limited recall of the events surrounding the murder.  You are also recorded as having told the probation officer that you simply have no idea why you did it.

Reports

[12]     I have read the victim impact reports from Lindsay’s two daughters which were read aloud to us this morning.

[13]     Those reports make for very very sad reading.   Lindsay was a much loved mother, grandmother, daughter, sister and friend.  It is no exaggeration to say that her shocking and violent death has devastated her family.  Her daughters speak in the most heartfelt terms of their overwhelming sense of loss; their unbearable grief, their pain and their anger at your betrayal.  Their own health has been affected and they are haunted, too, by the thought of their mother’s last terrifying moments.   They have suffered greatly as a result of what you have done and will continue to suffer. Lindsay has been deprived of her life and theirs will never be the same again.

[14]     In addition to the victim impact reports I have also read the pre-sentence report, a letter you have written, a character reference as well as medical reports and a letter from your accountant.

[15]     Turning first to the character reference, it is very positive.  The writers have known you since 2005 and hold you in high regard.  They described you as a good man, a loving husband and father, extremely hard working, friendly and capable.

[16]     The pre-sentence report tells me you are 48 years of age, born and raised in Scotland.  You married Lindsay in 1998.  She had two daughters from a previous relationship, one of whom lived with you from age 4 and called you Dad.  Although

the report says you have no previous convictions it appears, strictly speaking, that is not actually correct.  You have three convictions for assault in Scotland, although it is common ground that these were minor and of a historic nature.

[17]     It appears from the medical reports that you have also admitted to behaving violently towards others, although never Lindsay, on a limited number of previous occasions.

[18]     You, Lindsay and the younger step daughter emigrated to New Zealand in

2005.

[19]     You are a qualified butcher and have worked in a number of responsible management positions.  In 2006 you and Lindsay decided to buy a salami business on the West Coast, but soon found yourselves in debt and struggling financially. Lindsay was homesick and wanted to return to Scotland.   That, plus the financial pressures, appear to have led to frequent arguments between the two of you.  You considered her a spendthrift.

[20]     In the months before the murder you were working all day and drinking into the night, 6 to 7 days a week.  You were also under stress because of the death of your father in mid-2009 and upset by the fact that you were unable to afford to go to the funeral.

[21]     Despite the constant arguing and a deteriorating relationship, the probation officer has gained the impression that fundamentally you were still in love with your wife and valued her greatly.  You told the probation officer Lindsay was your world. The report describes you as enormously remorseful and as displaying an advanced level of empathy for those affected by what you have done.  You are also assessed as unlikely to reoffend in any way.

[22]     The sentiments expressed to the probation officer are echoed in the letter you have written to the Court.  The theme of your letter essentially is that in a moment of madness, weakness and selfishness, as you put it, you have lost all that mattered most – your wife and her family.

[23]     As mentioned, I have also been provided with a copy of two medical reports about you from two psychiatrists.   These reveal a longstanding pattern of heavy alcohol use to the point where both doctors consider you meet the diagnostic criteria for alcohol dependence i.e alcohol addiction.  There is no question that drunkenness played a key part in what happened on 4 July, although, as you yourself responsibly acknowledge, the alcohol  is not an excuse, only a partial explanation.

Sentencing analysis

[24]     I turn to explain the sentencing decisions which I am required by law to make today.  In deciding what is the appropriate sentence I must take account of a number of provisions in the Sentencing Act.   These include what are called the general principles and purposes of sentencing, as well as a number of specific provisions that relate specifically to murder cases.  I must also have regard to sentences that have been imposed by other Judges in other similar cases.

[25]     First, under the Sentencing Act, where a person is convicted of murder the Court must impose a sentence of life imprisonment unless such a sentence would be manifestly unjust.   In  your case it would not be manifestly unjust to impose a sentence of life imprisonment and you will therefore be sentenced to life imprisonment.

[26]     Secondly, under New Zealand law, even although a person has received a life sentence they may, nevertheless, apply for parole.  Parliament has therefore required that where a Judge imposes a life sentence for murder the Court must also, at the same time, decide on the minimum period of imprisonment the offender must serve before being eligible to apply for parole.   This is commonly called the minimum non-parole period.

[27]     The minimum non-parole period generally must not be less than 10 years or such longer period as the Court considers necessary for four purposes:

(i)to hold the offender accountable for the harm done to the victim and the community;

(ii)     to denounce the offender’s conduct;

(iii)to  deter  the  offender  and  others  who  might  be  like-minded  from committing similar offences, and

(iv)    to protect the community.

[28]     As you will have heard from the lawyers, the Sentencing Act also provides that in the case of certain specified categories of murders the minimum non-parole period must be at least 17 years, unless that is manifestly unjust.  That is the effect of s104.

[29]     A key issue I must now decide is whether the facts of your case come within one of the specified categories of murder under s104, bearing in mind that cases which fall under s104 are the more serious murders and are the exception rather than the norm.

[30]     The Crown say your case does qualify under s104 murder because it comes under the category of a murder committed with a high level of brutality.

[31]     Your lawyer, Mr Taffs, argues to the contrary.  He disputes that there was a high  level  of  brutality.    Mr  Taffs  contends  that  brutality  should  not  turn  on  a simplistic  counting,  as  he  put  it,  of  the  number  of  wounds  and  the  number  of weapons.  He has emphasised to me the impulsive nature of the attack; the fact that the  primary  weapon  was  introduced  in  an  innocent  setting;  the  fact  that  death occurred quickly and that there were no other aggravating features such as mutilation or attempts to conceal the crime.

[32]     In support of their respective position the lawyers have referred me to a number of other cases that have concerned s104.

[33]     I have carefully considered all of Mr Taff’s submissions which he has made very eloquently and well on your behalf.  I accept that in itself the number of wounds is not a decisive factor.  However, in my view, your crime was marked by a high level of brutality within the meaning of s104.

[34]     In  coming  to  that  conclusion  I have  been  particularly influenced  by the following factors:

(i)The ferocity of the attack as evidenced by the nature of the wounds and also by the condition of the three knives after the attack.   The force used was sufficient to break two of them while the third was left bent at a 90° angle so as to render it unusable.  The pathologist has stated that the perforation of bone of the lower jaw, upper spine and right shoulder indicated that “very substantial” force had been used in the delivery of the stab wounds.

(ii)The fact that you continued the attack, selecting additional weapons when knives broke and were embedded in Lindsay’s body.  For all you knew, she could have been saved had you on either occasion called for an ambulance instead of going back to that knife drawer.

(iii)    The location and focus of the wounds.

[35]     Having come to the conclusion that s104 does apply I am now required to undertake what has been loosely described as a two stage process.

[36]     The first part of the two stages is that I must undertake a comparison of the degree of culpability between your case and the standard range of murders, having regard to all the circumstances, including aggravating and mitigating factors relating to you personally.  That’s the first step.

[37]     Secondly, if step one indicates a non-parole period of less than 17 years, I must then consider whether 17 years would be manifestly unjust and, if so, what lesser period would suffice.

[38]     Turning then to the first stage, a comparison between your case and other murders.  I identify the aggravating features of your offending being as follows: the use of three weapons; secondly, the extent of the harm caused; thirdly, the fact the offending occurred in the home, and fourthly,  as submitted by the Crown  your actions in leaving the body there with the potential for your teenage step daughter to return and find her mother’s body.

[39]     There are no mitigating factors, in my view, relating to the offending.

[40]     In my assessment, before considering factors relating to you personally an appropriate starting-point, having regard to comparator cases, would be 17 years.

[41]     As  regards  factors  relating  to  you  personally,  I  accept  there  are  no aggravating features.

[42]     I also accept that there are some significant mitigating factors relating to you personally.  Mr Taffs advances the following as mitigating factors:

(i)     your acknowledgement of your actions and your reporting of the crime; (ii)     your remorse and appreciation of the enormity of what you had done

and its affect on others; (iii)        your guilty plea;

(iv)    your prior good character;

(v)the prolonged stress from which you were suffering at the time, as well as your alcohol dependency;

(vi)your age which he says means that the years to be spent in prison are likely to consume the majority of the rest of your life and,

(vii)  your very low risk of reoffending.

[43]     Of these factors I consider the most significant to be your profound remorse and the guilty plea, the suicide attempts graphically demonstrating the depth of your despair and your regret.   The guilty plea was late and the Crown case was, in my assessment, overwhelmingly strong.  On the other hand the guilty plea did at least spare Lindsay’s teenage daughter the ordeal of having to travel all the way from the United Kingdom to give evidence.

[44]     Having regard to the recent Supreme Court decision Hessell v R [1] relating to recognition of guilty pleas, a discount for the guilty plea is warranted, albeit a limited

one.  I place it in the vicinity of 10 per cent of the discretionary component of the minimum non-parole period.

[1] Hessell v R (2010) 24 CRNZ 966 (SCNZ).

[45]     Taking the mitigating factors into account, I consider that but for s104, a lesser term than 17 years would be justified.

[46]     That then brings me to stage two and the second question I must ask is having come  to  that  conclusion,  would  imposing  17 years,  in  the  words  of  s104,  be manifestly unjust?

[47]     As the words “manifestly unjust” indicate, the 17 years is not to be lightly departed from.  However, I have decided that 17 years non-parole period would be manifestly unjust in this case because of your exceptional remorse and your guilty plea.

[48]     I have, therefore, decided that in all the circumstances the just minimum non- parole period is 14½ years.   I should add so as to make this clear to you and Lindsay’s family, that this does not mean that at the end of 14½ years you will be automatically released.  What it means is that at the end of 14½ years you will be eligible to apply for parole.   Your actual release is a matter for the Parole Board. Further, if you are released you will be on parole for the rest of your life.

[49]     Mr Lamont, if you could please now stand.  Peter Lamont, on the charge of murder you are convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum non- parole period of 14½ years.

That is all.  Please stand down.