R v Parker - [2012] NZHC 2458

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI-2011-054-1717 [2012] NZHC 2458

THE QUEEN

v

RACHEL MARIE PARKER

Hearing: 21 September 2012

Counsel: B Vanderkolk for Crown
S Hewson for Prisoner

Sentencing: 21 September 2012

SENTENCING NOTES OF MILLER J

[1] On 4 September 2009 Jamie Faulkner was murdered by your partner, Jamie Mills, at your flat at Heretaunga Street. In August this year you stood trial as a party to his murder. At the end of the Crown case you were arraigned and pleaded guilty to manslaughter, for which you now appear for sentence.

[2] The facts are reasonably straightforward. You and Mr Mills are drug addicts, and at the time you were using very heavily. Your main drugs of choice were methadone and Ritalin, but you also used others. Mr Faulkner took it upon himself to supply you with methamphetamine. On 1 September you paid him $140 for a quantity of that drug. He failed to deliver it. In the succeeding days you threatened
him by text and phone.

R v PARKER HC PMN CRI-2011-054-1717 [21 September 2012]

[3] On 4 September you arranged for Mr Faulkner to go to your flat, promising him an extra $40 to complete the transaction. You told him that you would be alone. In fact you and Mr Mills had planned to lure Mr Faulkner to the flat and present him with a loaded firearm to threaten him, intending to enforce the original drug deal. As you well knew, Mr Mills kept a loaded firearm in the laundry.

[4] A series of texts were exchanged, the result of which was that Mr Faulkner entered the flat believing that you would be alone. He was unarmed. You were seated on a couch drinking a beer. Mr Mills was not in the lounge, but he entered after some brief discussion. He shot Mr Faulkner, unexpectedly so far as you were concerned. Counsel’s instructions are that you had in fact consummated or were about to consummate the drug deal so there was no need for the weapon. It appears that Mr Mills may have been surprised and intimidated by Mr Faulkner’s size, and it is said that Mr Faulkner reminded him of being addicted to methamphetamine. You knew that Mr Mills was an addict, of course, and you must have known that in that condition he was an erratic and unreliable person who could not be relied upon to stick to your plan.

[5] The Crown accepts that you did not foresee a killing with murderous intent, although you did recognise that an unlawful killing might result from the plan which you and Mr Mills had concocted. The significance of that is that you were properly convicted of manslaughter but not murder.

[6] The wound to Mr Faulkner proved fatal, but not immediately. He was able to wrestle the gun from Mr Mills and flee the scene, collapsing some distance away. You did not seek help for him, although he had bled heavily…

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 Parker

Details

AGLC: R v Parker [2012] NZHC 2458
Case: [2012] NZHC 2458
Decision Date: 21 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Parker involved a sentencing hearing where Rachel Marie Parker pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The incident stemmed from Parker's involvement in a drug deal that went awry, leading to the murder of Jamie Faulkner by her partner, Jamie Mills. Parker was convicted as a party to the manslaughter, having lured Faulkner to her flat under the guise of completing the drug deal, where Mills subsequently shot Faulkner. Parker did not foresee the killing but recognized that an unlawful killing might result from the plan she and Mills had concocted.

The primary legal issues before the court were determining the appropriate starting point for Parker's sentence and calculating the extent of any mitigating and aggravating factors. The court had to balance Parker's role in the crime, the seriousness of the offence, and her personal circumstances, including her drug addiction and troubled background. The court also needed to consider whether Parker's addiction could be treated as a mitigating factor despite statutory prohibitions.

The court, Miller J, began by selecting a starting point, considering comparable cases and sentencing levels for serious violence. Given the premeditated nature of the crime, the use of a firearm, and Parker's active role, the court determined a starting point of eight years. While Parker's addiction was acknowledged as a mitigating factor, it could not be used to explain her behaviour at the time of the offence due to legislative constraints. The court allowed for a modest discount due to Parker's guilty plea and some allowance for her personal difficulties and remorse. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence of six years and four months imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period set at 50% of the sentence, reflecting the gravity of Parker's culpability.

Orders