R v Needham HC Wellington CRI-2010-085-5780
[2010] NZHC 2432
•14 December 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY
CRI-2010-085-5780
THE QUEEN
v
STEVEN NEEDHAM
Counsel: (Heard at Wellington)
S Barr for Crown
S Hughes QC for Prisoner Judgment:
14 December 2010
SENTENCING NOTES OF JOSEPH WILLIAMS J [1] Some
time late in the evening of Saturday, 11 September
this year
Mr Needham you took another man‟s life. All agree that you did not mean to do it, but the life was forfeit nonetheless. You pleaded guilty to the crime of manslaughter and it is now my unenviable task to impose upon you a sentence that fits your crime and your circumstances.
[2] This is how Michael Drew lost his life.
[3] You had travelled down to Wellington from Stratford on the morning of Saturday, 11 September 2010 with your partner Melissa and two friends. You drank alcohol all the way. When you got to Wellington you hit the bars and kept drinking. You met with friends originally from Stratford who are now based in Wellington. And you drank more. At one bar your behaviour was so over the top that apparently
the bar manager noticed you and came to speak with you. He said quieten down or
R V STEVEN NEEDHAM HC WN CRI-2010-085-5780 14 December 2010
leave. It was still just Saturday afternoon. You finished your drinks and left at around 5pm. You headed to a friend‟s address in Mt Cook. You bought more alcohol on the way.
[4] You were still there at around 10pm and it seems by this time there was a bit of a crowd at the house.
[5] Two men – Michael Drew and his friend Edward Hall walked past that house. Mr Drew had also been drinking. Others from the party were out on the street at the same time and an argument broke out between Mr Drew and a friend or acquaintance of yours called Michael McKinley. Apparently three weeks earlier someone from the house had got out of a taxi there and kicked it causing $700 worth of damage. Michael Drew had seen it happen. Mr McKinley was then joined in the argument by Tarren Schneller, also a friend of yours. Apparently it was Mr Schneller who had kicked the taxi three weeks earlier and Mr Drew recognised him. The argument gathered momentum. At some point someone went inside for backup and you came out. According to the police summary of facts by the time you got there the dispute had actually settled down. Mr Drew and Mr Schneller had shaken hands and Mr Schneller was about to walk away.
[6] It seems that you stepped in and re-ignited the dispute. You told Mr Drew to stop picking on smaller guys. Apparently Michael McKinley was particularly small (I don‟t know about Mr Schneller). What is important to record at this point is that you are a big, tall, fit 24 year old – 194 cms tall, weighing 105 kilos. Mr Drew was much smaller and much older. He was nearly 25 kilos lighter at 81 kilograms, nearly
20 cms shorter at 175 cms, and nearly 30 years older at 52 years. As it turns out this was quite a mismatch.
[7] You say it was the fact that Michael Drew appeared to be bullying your friends that set you off. That appears to be right. At some point during the argument that developed there was aggression from Mr Drew but whatever aggression he had displayed seemed to be over by the time you got there.
[8] Now in richer language than I am going to use, you tell Mr Drew to pick on someone his own size and that sparks fresh conflict. Mr Drew (who as I said had also been drinking) was up for it. He takes off his jacket. He says he‟s trained in judo; and says he‟ll take you first because you are the biggest. You both step out into the middle of the road taunting each other to take the first swing. You throw a feint, Mr Drew throws a swing in response and you slip it – you after all have done some boxing training. You hit him with a straight right jab to the mouth and then a left hook that is hard enough to knock three of the teeth clean out.
[9] Mr Drew is unconscious before he hits the ground and – as so often happens in these tragic cases – he falls backwards with the back of head striking the tar seal with immense force. His skull is cracked and he suffers serious brain injury. Mr Drew does not regain consciousness and he dies in hospital four days later. This tragic death the result of liquor and testosterone fuelled aggression from you both. Ms Hughes is right – alcohol is the unpunished cause here. That‟s what happened.
Personal circumstances
[10] I want now to speak about your personal circumstances Mr Needham. Apart from this present offending and a somewhat chequered history of alcohol-related offending including one violence offence in Taranaki, I would have described you as a fine young man, a leader of your peer group, hardworking and conscientious. You are in a stable relationship, a 7 year old stepdaughter, you have a close-knit family involving parents, aunts and uncles. And you are well supported by a wide network of friends, business and community leaders in Stratford. In fact half of Stratford appears to be here today Mr Needham – all of your family, many of your friends and it doesn‟t look like a lot of electrical work is getting done there on this sad day.
[11] You are 24 years old and a newly qualified electrician in full-time work with a local electrical firm whose owner speaks very highly of you. You are captain of the Stratford Premier Rugby Team and you have been an age group rugby representative in Taranaki. Looking at the references provided by members of your peer group Mr Needham, and combining that with the fact that your mentors have
placed you in positions of responsibility from an early age, it is clear to me that you are seen as a leader among your peers.
[12] You are responsible in your work having now completed your apprenticeship. In your home life you seem settled and, if it were not for the tragic events that I have just described, you and your fiancé Melissa would have every reason to look forward optimistically to a bright and secure future as you raise your young family.
[13] As I said you have a wide and loyal support network. The number and quality of the character references given on your behalf by those within your community attest to that.
[14] I am going some time to read them because they are insightful, I think in a number of ways.
[15] Melissa writes: “Over the past two years Steven has truly stepped into a role of being a stepdad. He looks after us both wholeheartedly. He is caring, supportive, compassionate and has truly become his own man…”
[16] From your Uncle Dominic Barson: “Over the years I have known Steven to be an honest, trustworthy man. He is hardworking, very well respected and liked within his family and local community.”
[17] From your father: “Steven is a boy with a kind heart and very loyal to his family and friends, but his judgment is impaired when alcohol is involved. He is now sworn off alcohol after seeing the harm it can cause and knowing my son he will never touch another drop.”
[18] From your mother: “It has been heartbreaking to see our outgoing son completely shattered, frightened and sad. His moral and mental anguish has been obvious.”
[19] Both of your sisters, Jackie and Jacinta remark on how much of a change has been brought about in you since you gave up drinking.
[20] Your employer, Jono Keegan advises that his firm had recently won a significant contract in Taranaki and he has allocated responsibility for leading that contract to you.
[21] Kevin Davis, panelbeater says “Steven has a lot to offer. He certainly doesn‟t fit the description of being a „lock him up and throw away the key‟ type of person. He is considerate, obliging and thoughtful and his whole life is in front of him.”
[22] Your rugby coach, Chris Drummins says “Over the past season I have seen Steven grow in maturity partly due to his relationship with his partner, and the fact that Steven is regarded as a leader within the club. Steven is very caring but sometimes forgets to think before he acts.”
[23] There is a reference from Acting Deputy Principal Mrs Walker at Stratford High School. She has known and remembers you for 15 years – apparently taught you in 2004. The reference was little short of glowing. Equally is that of your former teacher, Dean and rugby coach at Stratford High School, Mr J M Walker.
[24] And so Mr Needham the list goes on; former employers, local business people, the operations manager at the Taranaki Rugby Football Union, gym instructors and so forth.
[25] Dr John Glass, a registered psychologist who has treated you in relation to this offending writes about the effects of Michael Drew‟s death on you. He says you are suffering from clinical depression and anxiety, that you are experiencing extreme remorse, guilt, a sense of failure, self-dislike and self-criticism. He also points out your powerful desire to change and to encourage others within the binge drinking culture of rugby circles to change also.
[26] This support and these insights into your character provide strong support for you.
Victim impact statement
[27] On the other side of the ledger I have also read the victim impact statement for Freda Fahy who was Michael Drew‟s partner for the last year.
[28] She helps us all understand the human side of this victim. Like you Mr Needham, Michael Drew is described as patient, loving, and utterly loyal. Ms Fahy says that Mr Drew had effectively saved her life. She had been involved, shall we say, in the seemier side of life here in Wellington until Mr Drew met her, and through patience and love he had brought her back onto the straight and narrow.
[29] Ms Fahy says she does not know how she is going to cope without him. She is trying to continue to follow his lead even though he has gone. But she is deeply fearful for her future. And struggling to cope with her grief.
[30] To her credit, despite the pain this tragedy has brought her, Ms Fahy bears you no ill will. She feels only sympathy for you. And she just wants you to understand her pain.
[31] All of these things I am required to take into account in setting your sentence
Mr Needham.
Starting point
[32] I turn now to the sentence itself. I will begin with a starting point for this offending, then consider any aggravating or mitigating factors relating to you personally and then pass sentence.
[33] The Crown urges a starting point of four and a half to six years‟ imprisonment – relying on a recent Court of Appeal decision in support of this. Mr Barr sets a high benchmark because he says:
(a) you intended to knock Mr Drew out when you threw the two punches;
(b) there was not one, but two punches;
(c) the force you used was great enough to knock three teeth out; and
(d) you caused the worst kind of injury – Michael Drew‟s death.
[34] Ms Hughes says this is too high. She, relying on another judgment, says there is a real difference between a death that results when two men agree to settle their differences by having a fight and death by an unprovoked attack. She says, relying on statements you made to the police that you had no intention to cause serious harm, you were just having a fight. Ms Hughes says the starting point should be three years.
[35] To some extent I agree with that. I too think the Crown sets the bar too high. It does not take account of the fact that Mr Drew joined in the aggression, provoked a response from you, and threw the first real punch. There were definitely two of you tangoing that night, Mr Needham, and according to the statements that I have read, the role of aggressor changed hands at least three times during the conflict. It is true as the Crown says that there were two punches, but they were in quick and, in my view, intuitive succession. This is not like the cases of a return to the victim for another beating. And I do not think there is real difference between your case and the one punch cases.
[36] In addition, once Michael Drew was on the ground you do offer some help before you leave.
[37] Having said that, a three year starting point as suggested by Ms Hughes undervalues the power you put into those two blows and the fact that you were so much bigger, stronger, fitter and younger than Mr Drew, even if he was up for the fight too.
[38] I consider that the correct starting point in this case is three and a half years.
[39] I do not consider there are any aggravating features of the offending that warrant an uplift from this starting point. I do not think that your conviction for
common assault in 2004 – that too arising from a street fight – justifies a further increase on the starting point.
Early guilty plea
[40] You effectively confessed to what you had done early in the morning of
12 September 2010, and you pleaded guilty to the offence at the earliest appropriate time. You are entitled to the maximum allowable discount for that. You have, as some of your references indicate, accepted responsibility for what happened throughout, and that has to be both acknowledged by me and encouraged by the courts.
[41] It is true that the Crown‟s case against you was a strong one not just because of your own statement but because of the statements from others who were also present. But I do not think that should diminish the power of your admission in this case. Its value and quality lies in your open and honest acceptance of responsibility and any consequences that will flow from that. I do not detect in any of your statements to the police that you pleaded guilty because you saw the writing on the wall. On the contrary, it appeared to me that you did this because you felt it was the right thing to do.
Remorse and support
[42] I consider that a further modest deduction is justified in light of two things. The first is your remorse. Several references alluded to the guilt and shame you felt, the fact that you had identified alcohol abuse as a significant cause of your actions that night, and – I am referring particularly here to the letter from your father and mother – the fact that you have turned your back on alcohol now. This is corroborated by the letter from the psychologist you have been seeing.
[43] You have, I understand a cheque for $20,000 to be donated to the Salvation Army as a token of your remorse. The cheque is provided by your parents and you intend to pay it back once you have sold your house. You say it is appropriate to
make the payment to the Salvation Army because Mr Drew was a resident in a Salvation Army home. Money does not of course bring Mr Drew back. Nor does it buy you a lighter sentence. But it is concrete evidence of the remorse that you feel and it is right that I acknowledge it to that extent.
[44] Alongside this is the second factor – the extraordinarily powerful support you enjoy from your family and your community. The outpouring in support of you and the pleas for mercy on your behalf have been a significant aspect of this case Mr Needham – and you are a very lucky man to be well supported. It is not often seen in this court room.
[45] Overall, I am prepared to reduce your sentence by one-third in recognition of all of these factors. This is as large a deduction as I feel is appropriate in relation to these matters.
Home detention?
[46] I know that you now live at home with your parents, your fiancé Melissa and your seven year old stepdaughter. A sentence of imprisonment would represent particular hardship for Melissa and your stepdaughter. I accept also that prison serves no rehabilitative purpose in your case. You are already on the road to rehabilitation. An important element of our system of justice is the ideal of mercy and there is much in your circumstances and this offending to suggest that the court should be merciful in this case.
[47] In the end however, I cannot agree after careful, and I mean careful, attention to your case that home detention is a punishment that fits not just your circumstances now, but your offending on that night. You got drunk. You picked a fight against a much smaller and older man and you hit him very very hard. So hard in fact that he fell to the ground without being able to break his fall, and perished.
[48] In the end there is no escaping my view that home detention would undervalue your culpability. And it would undervalue the life that was lost. In recognition of these things, it is necessary that you serve a term of imprisonment.
[49] If I read you right Mr Needham I feel you will understand why I say that.
[50] You are sentenced therefore to two years four months‟ imprisonment with such release conditions as the Parole Board may set.
[51] In the circumstances I think it unnecessary to make an order for reparations, it will be over to you whether you wish to make the payment or not.
[52] Stand down please.
Joseph Williams J
First Strike Warning
There was a 45 minute delay after the end of sentencing until the first strike warning was given. It was given in the following terms at 11:50am.
I am required by law to give you a warning and I am now going to give that to you.
Given your conviction for manslaughter Mr Needham you are now subject to the Three Strikes Law. I am going to give you a warning of the consequences of another serious violence conviction. You are also going to be given a written warning.
First, if you are convicted of any one or more serious violent offences other than murder committed after this warning, and if a Judge imposes a sentence of imprisonment then you will serve that sentence without parole or early release.
If you are convicted of murder committed after this warning, then you must be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole unless it would be manifestly unjust to do so. In that event the Judge must sentence you to a minimum term of imprisonment.
That concludes the warning.
Please stand down.
Joseph Williams J
R V STEVEN NEEDHAM HC WN CRI-2010-085-5780 14 December 2010
0
0
0