R v Matchitt - [2021] NZHC 2747

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2018-087-2244

[2021] NZHC 2747

THE QUEEN

v

HARRY CLEMENTS MATCHITT

Hearing: 14 October 2021

Counsel:

R W Jenson for Crown

R O Gowing for defendant

Sentence:

14 October 2021

SENTENCING NOTES OF TOOGOOD J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Tauranga Gowing & Co, Whakatane

R v MATCHITT [2021] NZHC 2747 [14 October 2021]

[1] Harry Clements Matchitt, you appear for sentence having been found guilty by a jury of the manslaughter of Brian Hilton at Opotiki on 7 July 2016.

[2] I begin by acknowledging the presence in the courtroom of one of Mr Hilton’s daughters, Anmea Hoskin, also your former partner, Mary-Ann Herbert, and your three daughters. I acknowledge also that Mr Hilton’s other daughter Celeste and his son Lance have been able to view this hearing remotely:

Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou.

[3] It is unfortunate that, because of COVID-19 response restrictions, it has been necessary to conduct this sentencing while you are in custody at Mt Eden Correctional Facility, Mr Matchitt, and I am in Auckland. It is now over three months since the jury’s verdict and the interests of justice require that the sentencing should not be left hanging over you until some uncertain time in the future when we could have all been present in court together.

The offending

[4] It is necessary, first, for me to describe the facts on which you are to be sentenced. I am required to accept as proved the facts that are essential to your guilt,1 and also to make findings, based on the evidence, of those facts I find to be proved beyond reasonable doubt so long as they are consistent with the jury’s verdict.2

[5]You killed Mr Hilton by brutally attacking him in his own home at around

8.30 pm on 7 July 2016. You were a guest there, spending some time drinking with Mr Hilton. For reasons that are not clear, you beat him violently around the head, striking him several times with such force as to cause fractures to his facial bones, both eye sockets and his nose, and an injury behind his right ear. What was described by the pathologist, Dr Stables, as a complicated and quite significant fracture pattern was so severe that it resulted in Mr Hilton’s mid-face, upper jaw and nose no longer being connected to his skull. The force you applied was of a kind seen in high-trauma situations such as motor vehicle accidents. You appear to have used your fists – you

1 Sentencing Act 2002, s 24(1)(b).
2 Edwardson v R [2017] NZCA 618 at [105]–[107].

may have kicked Mr Hilton when he fell to the ground – but there is no evidence that you used a weapon.

[6] When Mr Hilton was found the following morning, he was lying where you left him, deeply unconscious. He was battered, severely bruised and covered in blood, with blood on the floor around…

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 Matchitt

Details

AGLC: R v Matchitt [2021] NZHC 2747
Case: [2021] NZHC 2747
Decision Date: 14 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand Rotorua Registry, the case of R v Matchitt involved Harry Clements Matchitt, who was found guilty of the manslaughter of Brian Hilton, who died as a result of injuries sustained in a brutal attack by Matchitt on 7 July 2016. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Matchitt, considering the circumstances of the offence, including the extreme violence used against a vulnerable victim, and Matchitt's personal background and history of offending. The legal issues included assessing the seriousness of the offence, determining an appropriate starting point for sentencing, and considering any mitigating or aggravating factors in light of the statutory purposes and principles of sentencing.

The court, Toogood J, began by detailing the facts of the offence, emphasising the extreme violence of the attack which led to Hilton's death. The court acknowledged the aggravating factors, such as the extreme violence, the vulnerability of the victim, and the callous abandonment of Hilton after the attack. The court also considered Matchitt's personal circumstances, including his difficult upbringing, history of alcohol abuse, and extensive criminal record. Despite these mitigating factors, the court found that Matchitt's violent tendencies and lack of remorse warranted a significant sentence. The court set a starting point of nine years' imprisonment, adjusted for both aggravating and mitigating factors, resulting in a final sentence of seven years and nine months' imprisonment, with Matchitt required to serve a minimum of three years and nine months before being eligible for parole.

The final orders of the court included directions for the cultural report to be made available to the Department of Corrections for rehabilitative treatment and gratitude to counsel for their assistance. This decision underscores the court's focus on balancing the need for accountability, denunciation, deterrence, and community protection with the personal circumstances of the offender.

Orders