R v Phillips - [2022] NZHC 2037

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2020-075-500

[2022] NZHC 2037

THE QUEEN

v

ADRIAN REGINALD GEORGE PHILLIPS

Hearing: 16 August 2022

Counsel:

J N Hamilton and R L Mann for Crown R M Mansfield QC for defendant

Sentence:

16 August 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF HARLAND J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Hamilton
R M Mansfield QC, Auckland

R v PHILLIPS [2022] NZHC 2037 [16 August 2022]

[1] Mr Phillips, you are before the Court today for sentence having been found guilty by a jury of murder. The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment. In addition, you are before the Court for sentence having entered a guilty plea to a charge of unlawful possession of a firearm. That charge carries a maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment. Convictions have been entered and a stage one strike warning was given to you upon your conviction for murder.

[2] There is no dispute today that a sentence of life imprisonment must be imposed. The only issue I need to decided is the length of the minimum term that you must serve in prison before being permitted to apply for parole. I mention this, so that those present today understand that the minimum term the court imposes is not the sentence you will serve. Once you are eligible for parole it will be up to the New Zealand Parole Board to determine how long you should remain in prison before being released.

The facts

[3] Although at trial the jury were responsible for determining your guilt in respect of the murder charge, I now address the facts relevant to the issue I must decide.

[4] On the morning of 5 August 2020, nobody, let alone you or Bayden Williams would have expected that by the end of the day, you would be responsible for causing his death by shooting him. That context is important, because the killing of Mr Williams by you was not premeditated in the usual sense of the word. However, it is clear to me that over a lengthy period of time, you developed an unhealthy grudge towards Mr Williams arising from what you perceived to be the facts surrounding his separation from Chloe Randall, his long-standing partner and the mother of their child. Chloe Randall’s twin sister was your partner and prior to Mr Williams’ separation from Chloe Randall you and Mr Williams were good friends.

[5] It is not necessary for me to go into the reasons for your animosity towards Mr Williams apart from to say that it was exacerbated by your own mental state which had nothing to do with Mr Williams (a point I return to later) and a series of unfortunate events involving the Randall and Williams families arising from the difficulties that occurred following the separation of Mr Williams and Chloe Randall

and in which you became unwittingly involved. You felt aggrieved that the police did not lay charges against Mr Williams and his…

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 Phillips

Details

AGLC: R v Phillips [2022] NZHC 2037
Case: [2022] NZHC 2037
Decision Date: 16 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Adrian Reginald George Phillips was sentenced by Harland J in the High Court at Hamilton following his conviction for the murder of Bayden Williams and the unlawful possession of a firearm. The court considered a number of factors in arriving at a sentence, including the particular vulnerability of the victim, the degree of premeditation in the offence, and the defendant's mental health issues. The court found that the defendant's mental health issues, while not excusing his actions, did contribute to the offending and warranted a discount on sentence. The court also found that the defendant's youth and remorse were mitigating factors. The court ultimately sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment for murder with a non-parole period of 14 years, and a concurrent six-month sentence for the firearms offence. The sentences are to be served concurrently.

Orders