R v McIsaac - [2016] NZHC 1544

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI-2015-031-001360 [2016] NZHC 1544

THE QUEEN

v

ERIC BADEN MCISAAC

Counsel:
B D Vanderkolk and M J R Blaschke for Crown

L C Ord for Defendant

Sentence:

8 July 2016

NOTES ON SENTENCE OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Mr McIsaac, I am this morning sentencing you in relation to three matters: (1) The murder of Alexander Fisher who I will refer to as Alex.1
(2) Possession of an offensive weapon.2

(3) Burglary.3

[2] In sentencing you I shall:

(1) summarise your offending;

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 167 and 172.
2      Section 202A(4).
3      Section 231(1)(a).

R v McISAAC [2016] NZHC 1544 [8 July 2016]

(3) explain your personal circumstances;

(4) explain the sentence for the murder charge; and

(5)explain the concurrent sentences I am imposing in relation to the other charges.

[3] Before I begin, I wish to acknowledge the presence of yours and Alex’s family in Court today. The criminal justice system does its best to respond to human tragedies such as these, but it can never properly reflect the loss of a young boy’s life and the grief which I know you and your families will be going through and will always be feeling.

The murder of Alexander Fisher

[4] I turn first to the murder of Alex. Your victim was your 10 year old half brother.

[5] On the 5th of October 2015, your mother took you and Alex to the Waitarere Domain. You and Alex were planning to spend the night at Waitarere although you did not tell your mother the truth about where you and Alex were going to be staying.

[6] At some point on the 5th of October, you went to a property that you had previously broken into and removed some bedding that you had left at that property and a wood splitter, which is similar to an axe. You and Alex went to the shops and bought some food and drink and then made your way into the sand dunes at the beach. Alex appears to have fallen asleep in the bedding that you had taken with you.

[7] After Alex had fallen asleep you struck him twice in the head with the wood splitter. Alex would have died immediately and would not have known what had happened.

[8] You left Alex’s body where you had murdered him. The following day you telephoned your mother from a phone box at Waitarere Beach, saying you were distressed and that you needed to talk to her. When your mother arrived at Waitarere Beach you didn’t tell her the truth about where Alex was. She walked around the beach with you. Later that day the police asked you where Alex was. You refused to assist the police in their inquiries. Your conduct is impossible to comprehend particularly given the apparently close relationship that you had with Alex.

[9] The burglary charge relates to your breaking into the property from where you subsequently uplifted…

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 McIsaac

Details

AGLC: R v McIsaac [2016] NZHC 1544
Case: [2016] NZHC 1544
Decision Date: 8 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v McIsaac involved the sentencing of the defendant, Eric Baden McIsaac, for the murder of his 10-year-old half-brother, Alexander Fisher, as well as charges of burglary and possession of an offensive weapon. The defendant had pleaded guilty to all charges. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for the murder, taking into account the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act, as well as the impact of the offending on the victim and the defendant's personal circumstances.

The court found that the murder involved a degree of premeditation and planning, and that the victim was particularly vulnerable due to his age and being asleep at the time of the offence. However, the court did not find the level of brutality or calculation to warrant a higher minimum term of imprisonment than the 17 years prescribed by the Sentencing Act. The court also considered the defendant's early guilty plea and significant mental health issues as mitigating factors. As a result, the court reduced the minimum period of imprisonment for the murder charge to 14 years. The court also imposed concurrent sentences for the burglary and possession of an offensive weapon charges.

The court sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment for the murder of Alexander Fisher, with a minimum period of 14 years to be served in prison. The defendant was also sentenced to three years' imprisonment for the burglary charge and one year imprisonment for the possession of an offensive weapon charge, to be served concurrently. The court ordered the destruction of the knife used in the offence.

Orders