R v Merritt - [2017] NZHC 232

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CRI-2015-012-2978 [2017] NZHC 232

R

v

ALEXANDER JAMES WILLIAM MERRITT

Hearing: 17 February 2017

Appearances:

R P Bates and R D Smith for the Crown
M A Stevens and A J Logan for the Defendant

Sentencing:

17 February 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF NICHOLAS DAVIDSON J

[Mr Merritt you may remain seated until the end of my remarks]

Your appearance today

[1] Alexander Merritt: You appear for sentence for the murder of Ms Karin Ross in the early hours of Wednesday 2 December 2015.

[2] I acknowledge Ms Ross’s family who are here this morning. Your grief and the profound effect on your lives will be reflected in this sentencing. I express the
sympathy of the Court, and of the community to you.

R v MERRITT [2017] NZHC 232 [17 February 2017]

[3] A life sentence of imprisonment for murder must be imposed unless the Court considers that would be manifestly unjust.1 Your counsel, Mrs Stevens with Mr Logan, accept that you must be sentenced to life imprisonment.

[4] I am required by law to determine the minimum period you will spend in prison before you become eligible for release on parole. Your counsel submit that should be the minimum, absolute minimum, of 10 years, and the Crown submits
14½ years.

The facts

[5] Your defence was mounted with considerable skill by Mrs Stevens and Mr Logan, that this was a “who dunnit”, and that the Crown had not proved that you murdered Ms Ross. The jury found otherwise. The evidence was overwhelming.

[6] I must first consider the circumstances in which Ms Ross died, your reasons, and your attitude to her death. You still deny that you murdered Ms Ross.

[7] There is firm professional opinion that you have, or lie on the Autistic Spectrum Disorder range or (“ASD”). There are thorough reports to which I will refer, and they influence the sentence which I will impose. I hope they allow Ms Ross’ family a better understanding of your underlying makeup. Without that her death is simply inexplicable. Your attitude to her is callous and cruel.

[8] Ms Ross was 51 years old, your supervisor with Spotless Cleaning. You were

20 years old. A dislike and conflict developed between you and Ms Ross. The background was the way you parked your car, the way Ms Ross parked, and you thought you were badly treated by her.

[9] When a disciplinary process unfolded, your reaction was extreme. You said you would like to burn her family in front of her and, your words, “that lazy bitch, it would be fine if she died”. These might seem overblown threats, but in their malice
they tragically came to pass.

1 Sentencing Act 2002, s 102(1).

[10] A disciplinary meeting was to be held on 1 December 2015, the day before Ms Ross died, but that did not eventuate. That evening at work your mother told you what was alleged against you. Anyone…

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 Merritt

Details

AGLC: R v Merritt [2017] NZHC 232
Case: [2017] NZHC 232
Decision Date: 17 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Alexander James William Merritt was convicted of the murder of Karin Ross. The sentencing hearing took place in the High Court of New Zealand. The key issues were whether the murder was committed with a high level of brutality, cruelty, or callousness and what minimum term of imprisonment should be imposed. The court found that the murder was committed with a high level of brutality and callousness and sentenced Merritt to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 12 years. The court considered Merritt's personal circumstances, including his age, lack of criminal history, and Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD), as mitigating factors. The court also considered the impact of the murder on the victim's family. The court imposed a minimum non-parole period of 12 years, which takes into account the aggravating factors of the offending, as well as the mitigating factors. The court also issued a three strikes warning to Merritt.

Orders