Solicitors / Counsel:
Mr K Glubb, Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Mr I Tucker, Tucker & Co., Solicitors, Takapuna
Mr I Wotherspoon, Barrister, Auckland

R V OLLEY HC AK CRI-2010-004-16484 3 February 2012

[1] Mr Olley, you may remain seated until I come to impose the formal sentence.

[2] As you will be well aware there needs to be a lengthy sentence of imprisonment for manslaughter of this nature. And my task is to explain the sentence I am going to impose, not just to you but to the family of John Chambers – all of the family – and to the wider community because you offended against all of these people as well, of course, fatally against John Chambers.

[3] You appear for sentence for manslaughter. You were found guilty of manslaughter by a jury following trial on a charge of murder. The maximum sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment. However – and as I have just discussed with counsel – sentences that are imposed for manslaughter cover a wide range. This is because every case must be determined on its particular facts, and the facts from case to case vary greatly.

The facts

[4] The facts are critical. The charge of murder arose from the death of John Chambers at a boarding house in Mt Eden at about 3:30 am on 11 September 2010. Mr Chambers died from a single knife wound which penetrated his heart. You admitted that you were holding the knife when the fatal injury was inflicted. You gave evidence in your defence and claimed that it was an accident.

[5] You and Mr Chambers were in the kitchen of the boarding house at about

3:15 am, having been out together. A dispute arose. Other occupants of the boarding house, in bedrooms nearby, heard noise from the kitchen. Your evidence, which could not be challenged because there was no-one else in the kitchen at the time other than Mr Chambers, was that the argument arose over demands by him for methamphetamine which he wanted to consume. Both of you had consumed alcohol and cannabis that evening. There is evidence that Mr Chambers had earlier consumed methamphetamine. And I accept there is no evidence that you had consumed methamphetamine.

[6] The noise in the kitchen led to another resident, Peter Tupuola, coming out of his room into the kitchen. He found Mr Chambers seated in a chair with you standing about one to two metres away holding a bottle. You told Mr Tupuola that John Chambers had just pulled a knife…

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 Olley

Details

AGLC: R v Olley [2012] NZHC 40
Case: [2012] NZHC 40
Decision Date: 3 February 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, dealt with the case of The Queen v Martin Dennis Olley. The defendant was found guilty of manslaughter following a trial on a charge of murder. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case. The defendant had a history of violent offending and had used a knife in the commission of the crime, which resulted in the death of the victim. However, the court also considered the defendant's remorse, efforts to address his anger issues, and the fact that he called for an ambulance after the incident. The court determined that the starting point for the sentence should be nine years imprisonment, with an additional year for the defendant's criminal history. The final sentence was eight years and six months imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of four years and three months. This was to ensure accountability, deterrence, and community protection while also considering the defendant's efforts to address his personal issues.

The defendant, Martin Dennis Olley, was charged with murder but was found guilty of manslaughter by a jury. The court had to consider the nature of the offence, which involved the use of a lethal weapon and extreme violence, as well as the defendant's criminal history and efforts to address his anger issues. The court also considered the victim impact statements and the circumstances surrounding the offence. The defendant's previous convictions for violent offences and his offending while on parole for two serious offences of violence were significant aggravating factors. However, the court also took into account the defendant's remorse, his efforts to address his anger issues, and the fact that he called for an ambulance after the incident. The court determined that the starting point for the sentence should be nine years imprisonment, with an additional year for the defendant's criminal history. The final sentence was eight years and six months imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of four years and three months.

Orders