R v Lawson - [2012] NZHC 517

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2011-004-19247 [2012] NZHC 517

THE CROWN

v

BRENDON LAWSON

Hearing: 23 March 2012

Counsel: A Longdill for the Crown
G B Morison and D Niven for Mr Lawson

Judgment: 23 March 2012

SENTENCE OF WOODHOUSE J

Solicitors:
Ms A Longdill, Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Mr G B Morison and Mr D Niven, Barristers, Auckland

R V LAWSON HC AK CRI-2011-004-19247 [23 March 2012]

[1] Mr Lawson, as I indicated at the outset, you can remain seated until I come to impose the formal sentence. I do wish to indicate to you at the outset that in my judgment a sentence of imprisonment must be imposed. I will come to the reasons for that.

[2] You are, of course, to be sentenced for manslaughter – the manslaughter of

Adam Starr.

Facts

[3] The facts in outline are as follows. You are a drug addict, as was Adam Starr. You got to know each other at meetings of Narcotics Anonymous.

[4] On 1 March 2010 you and Mr Starr agreed that you would supply him with morphine. You obtained a morphine sulphate tablet that day and you went to his flat. When you got there he had been by himself drinking beer. The two of you consumed diazepam. You then dissolved the morphine tablet in water, put it into a syringe, injected part of the liquid into your own neck and then injected the remaining liquid morphine into Mr Starr’s arm. It is not in issue that this was done with his consent.

[5] You then went outside and spoke for some time on your mobile phone to your girlfriend. You have said that you were outside for around 20 minutes. You say that when you got back inside you found Mr Starr unconscious, or collapsed, under the table where he had been sitting. You tried to revive him with CPR and slapping – his face, presumably – but without success. You say that you thought Mr Starr was dead because of the colour of his lips. Whether he was dead at this point is not known.

[6] You panicked and left the flat. You called your girlfriend and she persuaded you to return and phone an ambulance, which you did, although it is clear enough that there was some further delay and perhaps of some reasonable amount of time. The paramedics found that Mr Starr was dead. As I have said, it is not known when he died precisely.

[7] A post-mortem examination established that Mr Starr died of a drug overdose consisting of alcohol, diazepam and morphine. And, of course, it is the injection of the morphine only which led to the charge against you to which you have pleaded guilty.

[8] One central point of this tragedy – and perhaps the central point – is that the victim was a willing participant, the two of you, as I have said, being drug addicts. But it was…

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 Lawson

Details

AGLC: R v Lawson [2012] NZHC 517
Case: [2012] NZHC 517
Decision Date: 23 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of The Crown v Brendon Lawson involved the sentencing of the accused for the manslaughter of Adam Starr. The incident occurred on 1 March 2010, when the accused, a drug addict, and the victim, who was also a drug addict, agreed that the accused would supply the victim with morphine. The accused dissolved a morphine sulphate tablet in water, injected part of the liquid into his own neck, and then injected the remaining liquid morphine into the victim's arm with his consent. The victim was found unconscious or collapsed under the table where he had been sitting. The accused attempted to revive him but was unsuccessful, and the victim was later found dead by paramedics. A post-mortem examination established that the victim died of a drug overdose consisting of alcohol, diazepam, and morphine.

The legal issues the court needed to decide included determining the appropriate starting point for the sentence, considering personal factors that might justify an increase or decrease in the starting point, and assessing the impact of the accused's guilty plea. The court considered the gravity of the offence, the accused's conduct after finding the victim collapsed, and the need to balance the interests of society with the accused's needs for rehabilitation and reintegration. The court also took into account the recommendations of the Moana House programme, which was willing to work with the accused on a long-term programme, but could only do so if there was a community-based sentence of intensive supervision and community detention, or following release from prison on parole.

The court concluded that a sentence of imprisonment was necessary and fixed the starting point for the sentence at four years. The starting point was reduced by six months to three years and six months, taking into account the need for rehabilitation and reintegration. The court also considered the accused's guilty plea, which resulted in a further reduction of 25%, leading to a final sentence of two years and seven months imprisonment. The court noted that the Parole Board would be able to assess the desirability of a release condition requiring the accused to attend the Moana programme, or some other suitable programme, when considering the accused's release from prison.

Orders