NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF DEFENDANTS T AND L PROHIBITED BY S 201 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.
ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF WITNESS AT [69] PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY
CRI 2015-283-57 [2017] NZHC 81
THE QUEEN
v
TYRONE PETER MADAMS KEVIN ROY MADAMS MATHEW THOMAS MADAMS L
Date:
3 February 2017
Appearances:
H Mallalieu for the Crown P Brosnahan for Tyrone Madams P Surridge for Kevin Madams L Scott for Mathew Madams R Crowley for L
Sentencing:
3 February 2017
SENTENCING NOTES OF MALLON J
Introduction
[1] There is quite a lot I need to cover this afternoon. Therefore each of the defendants are to remain seated. You will stand when I formally pass sentence on
you.
R v MADAMS [2017] NZHC 81 [3 February 2017]
[2] Before I start I remind the courtroom that there are suppression orders in place in relation to [L], who is here for sentencing, and a further member of the wider family who was discharged during the trial before me. The suppression is of their names and ages and their precise relationship to the other defendants. It can be reported that they were members of the wider Madams family. Those suppression orders are to continue.
[3] Tyrone Peter Madams, Kevin Madams, Mathew Madams and [L] you each appear today for sentencing for your involvement in the events that led to the death of Craig Rippon. He was killed on a Sunday afternoon in a violent confrontation on his property, outside his house, where he lived with his wife and extended family.
[4] None of you were the principal offender. The principal offender was Tyrone William Madams. He inflicted the fatal blows to Mr Rippon. He accepted this from the beginning and entered an early guilty plea to the charge of murder. He was sentenced in June to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 12 years.1 The starting point for that minimum non-parole period was 14 years but was reduced to 12 years for his demonstrable remorse [and his guilty plea].
[5] Tyrone Peter, Kevin and [L], you were each charged with murder as a principal or party. Mathew, you were charged with murder as a party only. You were also all charged with participation in a criminal group. You each pleaded not guilty to the charges and the matter proceeded to a jury trial before me in November last year.
[6] Part way through the trial [L] and Mathew pleaded guilty to manslaughter on a s 66(2) basis. The trial continued against Tyrone Peter and Kevin, but in light of the evidence the murder charges were put to the jury on a party only basis. The jury returned guilty verdicts [of manslaughter] for Tyrone Peter and murder for Kevin and you were both found guilty of participation in a criminal group. Convictions were
entered accordingly.
1
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 Madams
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Madams [2017] NZHC 81
Case
[2017] NZHC 81
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Madams involved the sentencing of four defendants, Tyrone Peter Madams, Kevin Madams, Mathew Thomas Madams, and L, for their involvement in the violent confrontation that resulted in the death of Craig Rippon. The defendants were members of the Madams family, which had a long and close association with the Rippon family and links through their association with the Black Power gang. The violent confrontation was triggered by the return of a lost puppy. The defendants were charged with various offences, including murder and participation in a criminal group. The legal issues the court had to decide included the appropriate starting points for the sentences, the impact of mitigating and aggravating factors, and whether a sentence of life imprisonment would be manifestly unjust. The court considered the defendants' roles in the offending, their personal circumstances, and the circumstances of the offence. The court also took into account the victims' impact statements and the principles of sentencing. The court sentenced the defendants to terms of imprisonment ranging from two years and four months to nine years and ten months, with some defendants also receiving a first strike warning. The court found that a sentence of life imprisonment would be manifestly unjust for one of the defendants, considering his limited involvement in the offending and his genuine remorse.