[3] I now need to explain to you, the victim’s family, and other members of the public why I have chosen that sentence. It will be necessary for me to do that at some length. Unfortunately, there may be times when I use words that you do not understand. Mr Mooney or Ms Pascoe will no doubt answer any questions afterwards. However, it is important that I explain myself in a way that can be understood by those who have been affected by your actions and the wider public in general.

[4] Please be seated while I do so.

Facts

[5] Jordan Nelson turned 13 years of age on 17 January 2012. At that stage, he was living with Mr Kerry Lock, a man who, while not related by blood to Jordan, was regarded as a father figure and called “granddad”. Mr Lock’s partner, Ms Rose Kurth, lived with them on a rural property at Urenui.

[6] On Sunday 15 April 2012, at about 3pm, Jordan retrieved a .22 rifle from the sleep-out. He walked towards the kitchen. Ms Kurth had her back to him while seated at the kitchen table doing a jigsaw puzzle. Jordan took aim, fired and killed Ms Kurth by shooting her in the back of her head.

[7] Those are the blunt and brutal facts on which Jordan appears for sentence today. But, for sentencing purposes, they need to be considered in a much broader context.

[8] Jordan’s father resides in Stratford and is 35 years old. For the past 12 years there has been a restraining order which has limited Jordan’s ability to contact his father. His mother is is aged 38 years and lives in the Hawkes Bay.

[9] Jordan considered Mr Lock to be his granddad. Essentially, that position has been present from the time Jordan was a baby or toddler. This occurred by reason of Mr Lock’s then relationship with Jordan’s actual paternal grandmother, around the time of his birth. This de facto grandfathership continued even after Mr Lock and Jordan’s grandmother separated, in about 2002. Mr Lock continued to look after him and to take care of him. This was done through a written agreement between Jordan’s mother and Child, Youth and Family.

[10] In the last week of September 2010, Mr Lock, Ms Kurth and Jordan moved to the address at Urenui. During Christmas 2010, Jordan spent time in 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 Nelson

Details

AGLC: R v Nelson [2012] NZHC 3570
Case: [2012] NZHC 3570
Decision Date: 20 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Nelson addressed the sentencing of Jordan Allan Nelson, a 13-year-old who had killed Ms Rose Kurth. The court had to determine whether the mitigating factors of Nelson's age, his brain development, and his personal circumstances justified a sentence other than the presumptive life imprisonment for murder. The legal issues revolved around whether the aggravating factors of vulnerability and premeditation were sufficient to impose a minimum term of imprisonment of at least 17 years and whether it would be manifestly unjust to sentence Nelson to life imprisonment.

The court reasoned that while the murder was serious, Nelson's age and developmental immaturity significantly impacted his culpability. Scientific research and psychiatric reports highlighted the deficiencies in adolescent decision-making abilities, vulnerability to external coercion, and the relatively unformed nature of the adolescent character. The court concluded that the vulnerability of the victim did not meet the statutory criteria, and the killing lacked calculated or lengthy planning. Balancing the seriousness of the crime against Nelson's age and personal circumstances, the court found it would be manifestly unjust to sentence him to life imprisonment. Instead, a lengthy determinate sentence of 18 years was imposed, taking into account the need to protect the community, mark society's abhorrence of the act, and provide Nelson with hope of rehabilitation and eventual release. The court emphasized that this sentence aimed to address the offending while considering Nelson's diminished culpability and personal circumstances.

Orders