R v McRae - [2017] NZHC 1881

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-292-000363 [2017] NZHC 1881

THE QUEEN

v

MICHAEL MCRAE

Hearing: 8 August 2017

Appearances:

M K Regan and S R Norrie for Crown
C Bennett for Prisoner

Judgment:

8 August 2017

SENTENCING BY PALMER J

Solicitors:
Kayes Fletcher Walker, Limited, Manukau
C H Bennett, Barrister, Manukau

R v MCRAE [2017] NZHC 1881 [8 August 2017]

Introduction

[1] Mr Michael McRae, you have pleaded guilty to, and been convicted of attempted murder, under s 173 of the Crimes Act 1961.

[2] On 5 August 2016 you stabbed your step-mother 15 times: from behind while she was sitting in a chair and when she turned round after putting her 14 month old daughter, your half-sister, on the floor. This was attempted murder. It is a serious offence as reflected in the maximum sentence which may be imposed: 14 years’ imprisonment. I now have to decide what sentence should be imposed for your offending.

Facts

[3] On 5 August 2016 you were 16 and a half years old and living with your father and his partner, your step-mother, in Papakura. That morning you looked after your 14-month-old half-sister briefly while your step-mother took her four-year old- son to day-care. After she returned, you followed her around the house until you returned to your sleep out.

[4] Around midday your step-mother sat down with her daughter in a reclining chair in the lounge. She fell asleep but was woken by the kitchen door closing. You approached her from behind and stabbed her multiple times with a 15 cm kitchen knife on her head, neck and shoulder. She leaned forward to protect her daughter and you stabbed her in the back, puncturing her lung. She put her daughter on the floor and turned to face you. You continued to stab her on her head, neck and hands. She resisted but you overcame that. She said the expression on your face was not angry or happy but blank and expressionless. You only stopped when you cut your own thumb and dropped to the floor and said “so sorry, so sorry”. Your step-mother picked up her daughter and ran outside screaming for help before she collapsed in the street. You made a 111 call to St John Ambulance. When the Police arrived you were co-operative.

[5] The Police found that a cell phone box in your sleep-out had been stabbed a number of times with the same knife that you used. In texts on your cell phone to

your girlfriend on 10 July 2016 you said you had imagined killing your whole family and that when you saw a girl on the street one part of you wanted to be nice and sweet to her and the other part thought about what her head would look like on a stick. On 11 July 2016 you had searched on your computer for “best place to stab and kill”. The previous day to the offending, on 4 August 2016, you…

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 McRae

Details

AGLC: R v McRae [2017] NZHC 1881
Case: [2017] NZHC 1881
Decision Date: 8 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand heard the case of R v McRae, where Michael McRae was convicted of attempted murder. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for McRae's crime, which involved stabbing his step-mother 15 times while she was sitting in a chair with her 14-month-old daughter. The court had to consider several legal issues, including the starting point for the sentence based on the severity of the offence, the personal circumstances of McRae, and whether any mitigating or aggravating factors should be taken into account. The court also had to consider the effect of McRae's guilty plea on the sentence.

The court's reasoning focused on the seriousness of the attempted murder, which was extreme, unprovoked, prolonged, and gratuitous. The court agreed with the Crown that a starting point of 11 years' imprisonment was appropriate, considering the premeditation and the vulnerability of the victim. The court considered McRae's personal circumstances, including his age, mental health issues, and the potential for rehabilitation. While the court acknowledged McRae's mental health issues, it determined that they did not warrant a reduced sentence, as McRae's risk of further offending was concerning. The court also took into account McRae's early guilty plea and his youth, reducing the sentence by around 20 per cent and 25 per cent respectively.

Ultimately, the court sentenced McRae to six years and seven months in prison, subject to parole when appropriate. The court emphasised the importance of collaboration between mental health services and the Department of Corrections to ensure McRae receives the necessary treatment and support. The court also highlighted the need for the Department of Corrections to be informed of McRae's risks and needs and to treat him as early and effectively as possible.

Orders