R v McLaughlin - [2013] NZHC 2625

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2011-009-013240 [2013] NZHC 2625

REGINA

v

JEREMY GEORGE EDWARD McLAUGHLIN

Hearing:

9 October 2013

Appearances:

B M Stanaway and K B Bell for the Crown

M I Sewell and A C Kelland for Mr McLaughlin

Judgment:

9 October 2013

SENTENCING REMARKS OF PANCKHURST J

Life imprisonment

[1] Mr McLaughlin could you stand up please.

[2] In April of this year you were found guilty by the verdict of a jury of the murder of Jade Bayliss. I remanded you for the preparation of reports and as a result your sentencing has been considerably delayed until today.

[3] At the outset I propose to deal with the sentence of life imprisonment. I do so because it is the primary sentence for the crime of murder. It carries two important consequences. Firstly, if you are ever released at all it will be because the Parole Board is satisfied you no longer pose a risk to the community. And even then, you will remain subject to recall on account of any conduct indicating an emergence of risk.

[4] Without doubt your crime warrants life imprisonment and I hereby sentence you to life imprisonment.

[5] I turn to the further issues: what minimum period of imprisonment is necessary in your case, or whether as the Crown has submitted you should be made ineligible for parole. Before I do so, it is necessary to refer to the facts of your case, the impact of your crime upon the Bayliss family and others, and your personal history and circumstances. That will take a little time and you may sit down until I say otherwise.

The facts:

[6] At the commencement of your trial you entered belated pleas of guilty to the charges of burglary and arson, but you of course maintained a plea of not guilty in relation to the murder. Despite the verdict of the jury you maintain your innocence. You even told the report writers that you wanted the police “to do their job”. You wanted them to conduct “an adequate investigation”, rather than charge you “without evidence”.

[7] You faced overwhelming evidence in relation to both the burglary and the arson. Indeed, you said to the three report writers that you were angry with Jade’s mother because she had ended her relationship with you. You said that the burglary was committed out of revenge, for her perceived actions and because you maintained items of your property remained at the Bayliss home. You even said you felt entitled to commit the burglary. In relation to the arson you used the word that you enjoyed setting light to Mrs Bayliss’s bed. Mr McLaughlin, I find the notion that you went into the house twice, committed the burglary and then the arson, but that you did not also murder Jade to be simply fatuous.

[8] There are three aspects of the Crown case which I will briefly mention to explain why I have said this. Firstly, 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 McLaughlin

Details

AGLC: R v McLaughlin [2013] NZHC 2625
Case: [2013] NZHC 2625
Decision Date: 9 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Panckhurst J sentenced Jeremy George Edward McLaughlin to life imprisonment for the murder of Jade Bayliss, along with terms for associated crimes of burglary and arson. McLaughlin was found guilty by a jury and had maintained his innocence throughout. The court considered the brutal and senseless nature of the crime, the significant impact on the victim's family, and McLaughlin's personal history, including previous convictions for manslaughter and causing grievous bodily harm.

The legal issues included determining the appropriate sentence for murder, whether McLaughlin should be made ineligible for parole, and the minimum term of imprisonment necessary. The court assessed the gravity of the offence, the risk McLaughlin posed to the community, and his personal circumstances. Expert reports highlighted his lack of empathy, manipulative tendencies, and a propensity for violent behaviour without warning. The court concluded that while McLaughlin was on the brink of meeting the test for life imprisonment without parole, it was not sufficiently clear-cut to warrant such a sentence. Instead, the court imposed a stringent minimum term of 23 years imprisonment, with parole eligibility only after almost 60 years.

In conclusion, the court sentenced McLaughlin to life imprisonment for murder, with a minimum term of 23 years before parole could be considered. Additionally, he received four years for burglary and eight years for arson, to be served concurrently with the life sentence. The court also issued a formal warning under the three strikes legislation, stating that any future serious violent offence would result in a sentence without parole, and a second murder conviction would lead to life imprisonment without parole.

Orders