R v Nattrass-Bergquist - [2016] NZHC 1090

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-004-01345 [2016] NZHC 1090

BETWEEN THE QUEEN

AND

LEONARD NATTRASS-BERGQUIST AND BEAUEN DANIEL GEORGE WALLACE-LORETZ

Hearing: 24 May 2016

Appearances:

DJ Johnstone and D Dufty for Crown
MS Gibson and DS Niven for Defendant, Nattrass-Bergquist

JIS Kovacevich, V Feyen and B Lauaki for Defendant, Wallace- Loretz

Sentence:

24 May 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF TOOGOOD J

R v Nattrass-Bergquist and Wallace-Loretz [2016] NZHC 1089 [24 May 2016]

[1] Leonard Nattrass-Bergquist and Beauen Wallace-Loretz: you appear for sentencing after being found guilty by a jury last month of murdering Mr Ihaia Gillman-Harris on 27 December 2014. You were also found guilty of aggravated robbery and unlawfully taking a motor vehicle, offences committed at the same time.

[2] I acknowledge the members of Mr Gillman-Harris’s whanau who are here this morning: Kia ora tatau. I understand their grief and the pain that their brother’s tragic death and the trial have caused them and I extend the Court’s deepest sympathy.

[3] Murder carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and that sentence must be imposed unless the Court considers that it would be manifestly unjust.1
Your counsel, Mr Gibson and Mr Kovacevich, have properly accepted that you must be sentenced to life imprisonment but I am required also to determine the minimum period you will spend in prison before you become eligible for release on parole and, in particular, whether that should be for a period of at least 17 years.2

Factual background

[4] It is necessary for me to explain the facts of the case at greater length than would normally be necessary because my findings about your state of mind at the time Mr Gillman-Harris was attacked are important to my consideration of the minimum period of imprisonment which you should serve before being eligible for parole.

[5] Also, at your trial, there was a major conflict between the Crown’s version of the events which led to your offending and the evidence given by you, Mr Nattrass- Bergquist, and adopted by Mr Wallace-Loretz. In essence, the Crown’s case was that Mr Gillman-Harris was killed when you planned and then carried out a serious assault with intent to rob him. You defended these charges, however, by claiming
that there was no planned attack and that Mr Wallace-Loretz hit Mr Gillman-Harris

1 Sentencing Act 2002, s 102(1).
2 Sections 103(1)(a)(i) and 104.

over the head with a full bottle of spirits when defending Mr Nattrass-Bergquist from a violent sexual attack.

[6] In those circumstances, I am required to approach your sentencing against a factual background that I find to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, bearing in mind the evidence that I heard at trial and the jury’s verdicts. I am satisfied that the Crown proved the following circumstances to the standard required.

[7] Ihaia Gillman-Harris was a 54-year-old man who befriended you a few days before Christmas 2014. He then went to Wellington to spend Christmas with his family. Just before midnight on Boxing Day,…

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 Nattrass-Bergquist

Details

AGLC: R v Nattrass-Bergquist [2016] NZHC 1090
Case: [2016] NZHC 1090
Decision Date: 24 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Leonard Nattrass-Bergquist and Beauen Wallace-Loretz were found guilty by a jury of the murder of Ihaia Gillman-Harris, as well as aggravated robbery and unlawfully taking a motor vehicle. The court was required to determine the minimum period of imprisonment the defendants would serve before being eligible for parole, with a consideration of whether it should be at least 17 years. The court found that the defendants had planned and carried out a serious assault with intent to rob Mr Gillman-Harris, but did not intend to kill him or appreciate the risk that he might die from the blows struck. The court considered the defendants' youth, traumatic experiences, and efforts towards rehabilitation in determining the minimum period of imprisonment. The court concluded that imposing a minimum period of 17 years would be manifestly unjust and sentenced the defendants to life imprisonment with a minimum period of 10 years 9 months for Nattrass-Bergquist and 11 years for Wallace-Loretz. The sentences for aggravated robbery and unlawfully taking a motor vehicle were to be served concurrently.

The court acknowledged the devastating impact of the crime on Mr Gillman-Harris's family and the community, and emphasised the importance of holding the defendants accountable for their actions while also considering their potential for rehabilitation. The defendants were encouraged to take responsibility for their actions, behave well in prison, and apply themselves to education and rehabilitation programs. If released, they must comply with the conditions of their release or face returning to prison. The court highlighted that the defendants' futures were in their own hands and that rehabilitation could lead to normal lives with many years of productive life ahead of them.

Orders