R v Martin - [2021] NZHC 1012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2019-019-1654

[2021] NZHC 1012

THE QUEEN

v

RYDELL TUAUPIKI MARTIN

Hearing: 7 May 2021

Appearances:

R L Mann and A S C Alcock for Crown

P J Morgan QC and M L Jepson for Defendant

Sentence:

7 May 2021

SENTENCING REMARKS OF PETERS J

Solicitors: Hamilton Legal, Crown Solicitor, Hamilton

Counsel:P J Morgan QC, Hamilton M L Jepson, Hamilton

R v MARTIN [2021] NZHC 1012 [7 May 2021]

[1]Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[2] Mr Martin, you are for sentence today for the manslaughter of Phillip MacPherson in Pukemiro on 1 March 2019.1 The maximum sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment.2

[3] A jury found you not guilty of assault with a weapon, and not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter following a trial in March 2021 at which I presided. That trial was almost two years after Mr MacPherson’s death. The trial is recent so I have a clear recollection of the evidence.

[4] Following the jury’s verdict, I entered a conviction for manslaughter and gave you what we refer to as a “first strike” warning.

[5] Before I go any further, I wish to acknowledge Mr MacPherson’s whānau. The trial, and much of the evidence, must have been very difficult for you. This morning I have heard the statement from Ms Veronica MacPherson and I have also read the victim impact statement of Ms Sonia Wilson. It is clear from those, and indeed from the evidence I heard at trial, that Mr MacPherson was a much loved son, nephew, brother, father, and friend. That he will not be able to see and help his children grow up is a particular tragedy. His loss is permanent, and the burden his children and his whānau suffer as a result is also permanent. The MacPherson family behaved with considerable dignity throughout the trial and that has continued this morning.

Process

[6] In so far as concerns the process to be followed this morning, it is necessary for me first to summarise the facts of the offending. Then I can turn to the sentencing process itself, which comprises two stages. The process does take some time but I need to explain the reasons for what I have decided. Mr Martin, you will not know the sentence until I get to the very end, so please bear with me until then.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 171.
2 Section 177.

Facts

[7] Turning to the facts, as I have said, the offending occurred at Pukemiro, which you and your uncle, Te Poro Kingi, happened to be in on the day in question. As you were leaving Pukemiro that afternoon, you came across your much younger cousin, Alazay Fisher-Williams.

[8] You and Alazay started partying and drinking on the corner of Joseph and James Streets whilst Te Poro stayed in the car.

[9] Whilst you and Alazay were partying, Mr MacPherson and his friends,…

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 Martin

Details

AGLC: R v Martin [2021] NZHC 1012
Case: [2021] NZHC 1012
Decision Date: 7 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Martin was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Hamilton Registry. Rydell Tuaupiki Martin was found guilty of manslaughter in relation to the death of Phillip MacPherson, which occurred in Pukemiro on 1 March 2019. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence for manslaughter, with the maximum penalty being life imprisonment. The legal issues included determining the starting point for sentencing, considering mitigating and aggravating factors, and adjusting the sentence based on personal factors. The court considered the nature of the offence, the use of a lethal weapon, the vulnerability of the victim, and Martin's background, criminal history, and remorse. The court decided on a starting point of eight years' imprisonment, which was then reduced by 24 months to arrive at a final sentence of six years' imprisonment for Martin.

Martin was sentenced to six years' imprisonment for the manslaughter of Phillip MacPherson. The court considered the nature of the offence, the use of a lethal weapon, the vulnerability of the victim, and Martin's background, criminal history, and remorse in arriving at the final sentence. The court found that while Martin's criminal history did not warrant an uplift in sentence, his upbringing and personal factors warranted a discount. The court also took into account Martin's offer to plead guilty a year before the trial, which would have spared the MacPherson family and Martin's family a lengthy trial. The court decided against imposing a minimum period of imprisonment, leaving the date of Martin's release to be determined by the Parole Board.

Orders