R v Phillimore - [2023] NZHC 2225

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2022-020-001216

[2023] NZHC 2225

THE KING

v

RAYMOND CHARLES PHILLIMORE

Appearances: M B Smith and A J Goodwin for Crown L P F Lafferty for Prisoner

Sentencing:

17 August 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF ANDREW J

R v RAYMOND CHARLES PHILLIMORE [2023] NZHC 2225 [17 August 2023]

Introduction

[1] Mr Phillimore you may remain seated until I ask you to stand at the conclusion of my remarks.

[2] Mr Phillimore, you appear this morning for sentence having pleaded guilty to a charge of murder, the murder of Ms Gaelene Bright. You are also to be sentenced on a charge of unlawful possession of a firearm.

[3]Despite your guilty plea, this was a heartless and wholly inexcusable crime.

[4]The charge of murder carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.1

[5] Section 102(1) of the Sentencing Act 2002 requires me to sentence you on the murder charge to imprisonment for life unless such a sentence would be manifestly unjust. In this case, both counsel agree that life imprisonment is required; no submission is made on your behalf that such a sentence would be manifestly unjust. And I, too, am satisfied that I must impose a sentence of life imprisonment, so accordingly that will be your sentence.

[6] The critical issue I must determine today is the minimum period of imprisonment, what we lawyers and Judges call the MPI, that you should serve before becoming eligible for parole.

[7] I am going to begin my comments by addressing first of all the facts of your offending, as set out in the Police summary of facts, because of course I must sentence you on this basis.

Relevant facts

[8] You and Ms Bright were in an intimate relationship for three years and resided together at a rural property in Waimamaku that backs onto the Waipoua Forest. It is understood that the relationship had deteriorated in the time leading up to the murder and there was some tension between you and Ms Bright, and particularly following your attendance at the Wellington Covid-19 protests in early 2022.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 172.

[9] It is common ground that Ms Bright spoke to an ex-partner via a social media platform on the afternoon of 1 May 2022. Later that day, you and Ms Bright were alone at your address. At some point in the early hours of the morning you shot Ms Bright three times, once in the chest and twice in the head. As the Crown has submitted, it was an execution-style murder. You used a Toz brand .22 bolt-action rifle loaded with a ten-shot magazine. You did not hold a New Zealand firearms licence. The Police summary of facts and submissions from your lawyer suggest that your actions were prompted by a claim by you that Ms Bright was seeing or talking to other men.

[10] After fatally shooting Ms Bright, you placed her body into a tarpaulin…

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 Phillimore

Details

AGLC: R v Phillimore [2023] NZHC 2225
Case: [2023] NZHC 2225
Decision Date: 17 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Raymond Charles Phillimore appeared before the High Court of New Zealand at Whangarei for sentencing following his guilty plea to the charges of murder and unlawful possession of a firearm. The court was required to determine the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) for the murder charge under the Sentencing Act 2002, considering both aggravating and mitigating factors. The primary issue was whether the murder involved circumstances that warranted a minimum term of at least 17 years under Section 104 of the Act.

The court examined the brutal and callous nature of the crime, where Phillimore shot Ms. Gaelene Bright three times, abandoned her body in a forest, and attempted to evade detection. While acknowledging the heinous nature of the crime, the court found that Phillimore's actions did not reach the high threshold of brutality and callousness required to engage Section 104(1)(e). Similarly, the court determined that Ms. Bright was not particularly vulnerable under Section 104(1)(g). Therefore, the court concluded that the MPI should not be fixed at 17 years or higher.

In determining the appropriate MPI, the court considered the culpability of Phillimore, the use of a firearm, and the domestic nature of the crime. The court also took into account personal mitigating factors, such as Phillimore's late guilty pleas, which resulted in a six-month reduction from the starting point of 13.5 years. The court imposed a concurrent sentence of one year for the unlawful possession of a firearm.

The court sentenced Raymond Charles Phillimore to life imprisonment for the murder of Ms. Gaelene Bright, with a minimum period of imprisonment of 13 years. He was also sentenced to one year of imprisonment for the unlawful possession of a firearm, to be served concurrently.

Orders