R v M - [2022] NZHC 1867

INTERIM ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT

PURSUANT TO S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2021-227-1

[2022] NZHC 1867

THE QUEEN

v

M

Counsel:
M B Smith for Crown

R M Mansfield QC and T J Buckley for Defendant

Sentenced:

29 July 2022

Charge:

Murder

Plea:

Not Guilty

SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Marsden Woods Inskip Smith (Whangarei) for Crown Ron Mansfield QC (Auckland) for Defendant

R v M [2022] NZHC 1867 [29 July 2022]

Introduction

[1] Mr M, I have to sentence you for the murder of Bram Willems. This is going to take me some time because you are not the only audience I am talking to. I am talking to Mr Willems’s family, to your whānau, to the lawyers and, very likely, to other Judges.

[2] You have just heard victim impact statements from members of Mr Willems’s family. Their grief, anger and disbelief are completely understandable. They have lost a beloved son and brother because you killed him with the knife you carried when you went out, and with murderous intent. They will carry the loss of Mr Willems with them for the rest of their lives. This sentencing will focus on you, because it is about what will become of you. But we are here only because you murdered Bram Willems, and that is the context for all that follows.

[3] You have listened to the submissions on your behalf by Mr Mansfield QC. They are a brief summary of his 55 pages of written submissions which I have studied closely. Those submissions are backed up by reports on you, which I have also read carefully. There is the cultural report from Mr Mendes, the psychological report from Professor Ian Lambie, the psychiatric report from Dr Armstrong, and the pre-sentence report from the Department of Corrections. I have also read numerous letters from people who have known you for most of your life which all say great things about you. I have seen your Kingslea School Individual Learner Report. Finally, I have read your mother’s letter to me and your own letter.

[4] All the submissions, references and reports are to the effect that you are a kind and caring young man whose behaviour changed for the worse after your parents separated in 2019. You began to associate with undesirable company and adopted what have been called “gangsta” habits. I am told that any form of imprisonment would be unduly harsh on you and that a life sentence would be actively harmful.

[5] The Crown’s submission is that the law requires me to sentence you to life imprisonment with the statutory minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years.

[6] Mr Mansfield submits you should receive a prison sentence of five to six years so you will be released from the Youth Justice facility by the time you are 18…

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 M

Details

AGLC: R v M [2022] NZHC 1867
Case: [2022] NZHC 1867
Decision Date: 29 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v M, the defendant was charged with the murder of Bram Willems. The defendant, represented by counsel, pleaded not guilty. The matter came before Brewer J in the High Court of New Zealand. The legal issues before the court included whether a life sentence was appropriate given the defendant's age and personal circumstances, and whether the statutory minimum period of imprisonment should be increased. Brewer J found that while the defendant's age and personal circumstances were relevant, they did not make a life sentence manifestly unjust. The judge sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment with a minimum statutory non-parole period of 10 years.

Brewer J considered the defendant's age, personal circumstances, and the need to denounce the offending and protect the community. The judge found that while the defendant's age was a mitigating factor, it was not enough to make a life sentence manifestly unjust. The judge also considered the defendant's upbringing and the impact of his parents' separation on his behaviour. The judge found that the defendant's offending was not caused by any exceptional mental health condition or other impairment. The judge concluded that the statutory presumption of life imprisonment for murder had not been displaced, but that the statutory minimum non-parole period should not be increased. The judge sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment with a minimum statutory non-parole period of 10 years. The defendant may be eligible for parole if he demonstrates that he is not a threat to the community and has grown to understand his situation.

Orders