Legal Research
Cases
R v MacDonald

R v MacDonald

Case [2021] NZHC 224 15 February 2021

Criminal Liability

Manslaughter

Excessive Self-Defence

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2019-054-002951

[2021] NZHC 224

THE QUEEN

v

TIMOTHY MACDONALD

Counsel: B Vanderkolk and E Pairman for Crown E Killeen for Defendant

Sentence:

15 February 2021

SENTENCING NOTES OF GRICE J

Overview

[1] Mr MacDonald, you have pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter. You have been remanded in custody since 12 November 2020,1 when I gave you a first strike warning.

[2] Since then a pre-sentence report, a s 38 psychological report (Psychological Report)2 and a s 27 cultural report (Cultural Report)3 have been prepared and I have those before me today.4

1      R v Macdonald HC Palmerston North CRI-2019-054-002951, 12 November 2020.
2      Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, s 38.
3      Sentencing Act 2002, s 27.
4      This sentencing was delivered orally on 15 February 2021. The written form has been edited for grammar and flow, and has been footnoted before distribution, but the substance of the decision remains unchanged.

R v TIMOTHY MACDONALD [2021] NZHC 224 [15 February 2021]

Background

[3] The victim was your first cousin, Mr Joeora Te Rupe. Mr Te Rupe had been in a ten-year relationship with your friend Ms Tindall, which ended in October 2018. They both stayed in touch.

[4] Mr Te Rupe introduced you to Ms Tindall, you got to know her and the two of you began a relationship.

[5] Mr Te Rupe became aware of this relationship after you told him about it, and was not very happy about it. This caused tension between the three of you.

[6] On the evening of 13 October 2019, Mr Te Rupe sent a number of hostile messages to Ms Tindall. He sent more angry messages the next morning. The final message he sent was at 11.15 am and he stated he would see you soon. Ms Tindall said to the police that she did not see these messages. There is no indication you saw them either.

Offending

[7] At 11.21am, on 14 October Mr Te Rupe arrived at the house where you and Ms Tindall were residing.

[8] When Mr Te Rupe knocked on the door, you said you would go the door and on the way to the door you armed yourself with a loaded 12-gauge sawn-off pump-action shotgun that was loaded with six live shotgun shells. You had stored this in the hallway.

[9] A next-door neighbour heard Mr Te Rupe yelling “let me in”, before you opened the door. Mr Te Rupe then entered and there was an altercation described by Ms Killeen as a tussle between the two of you.

[10] In the course of that, a single shot was discharged at close range.5 Mr Te Rupe was struck in the upper right thigh/groin area. His right femoral artery was damaged and that caused major blood loss.

[11] Ms Tindall administered first aid and rang 111 for an ambulance. You told her not to ring the…

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 MacDonald

Details

AGLC: R v MacDonald [2021] NZHC 224
Case: [2021] NZHC 224
Decision Date: 15 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Timothy MacDonald was sentenced for manslaughter, having pleaded guilty to the charge. The case before the court involved the death of the defendant's cousin, Joeora Te Rupe, who was shot by MacDonald during an altercation. The court considered various reports, including cultural and psychological assessments, in determining the appropriate sentence. The legal issues addressed included the appropriate starting point for sentencing, the impact of excessive self-defence, and the consideration of personal mitigating factors. The Crown argued for a starting point of at least seven years, while defence counsel suggested a lower starting point due to excessive self-defence. The court ultimately determined a starting point of six and a half years, considering the use of a weapon and the serious injury leading to death as aggravating factors, and excessive self-defence as a mitigating factor. Personal factors, including the defendant's background and cultural issues, were also taken into account. The court imposed a sentence of 37 months' imprisonment, applying discounts for personal factors and the defendant's guilty plea. The court also ordered the destruction of the firearm and ammunition used in the offence.

Orders