R v Price - [2018] NZHC 811

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CRI-2016-042-1644

[2018] NZHC 811

THE QUEEN

v

MARTIN GRANT PRICE

Hearing: 26 April 2018

Counsel:

J M Webber and S J Revell for Crown

R M Mansfield and S R Lack for defendant

Sentence:

26 April 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF DOBSON J

[1] Mr Price, I now have to sentence you for the murder of Mr Morton and I am also required by law to give you a first strike warning, which I will do at the end of explaining my sentence.

[2] It is mandatory that I sentence you to life imprisonment unless it would be manifestly unjust to do so. There is no suggestion that your circumstances and those of the killing would make a life sentence manifestly unjust. So the sentence will be life imprisonment, and the issue is the length of the minimum period of imprisonment (MPI). The Crown has submitted that the appropriate term is 17 years on grounds that I will shortly review. Mr Mansfield has submitted that the 17 year threshold is not made out and that the MPI ought to be no more than in a range between 11.5 and 13 years.

R v PRICE [2018] NZHC 811 [26 April 2018]

[3] The Sentencing Act 2002 (the Act) contains a range of circumstances the Court has to consider in setting the MPI for a murder conviction. First, it provides the MPI may not be less than 10 years except in circumstances that could not apply here, and that the Court has to impose a term that holds you accountable, denounces the conduct involved, deters you and others and protects the community.1

[4] Secondly, s 104 of the Act recognises that there will be some murders that are more serious than others, and directs that an MPI of at least 17 years will be required if one or more of defined features of the offending or the offender are made out. Two potentially relevant features in s 104 are, first, where a murder involved unlawful entry into, or unlawful presence in, a dwelling place and, secondly, where a murder was committed with a high level of brutality, cruelty, depravity or callousness. Now you have heard Mr Webber this morning highlighting the features of the killing here that the Crown argues bring both those considerations into play.

[5] On your behalf, Mr Mansfield has urged that I should adopt the explanation for the killing that you provided in evidence, except to the smallest extent of variation from your version that would be needed to fit with the jury’s finding of murder. So, Mr Mansfield asks me to assess your culpability on the basis that you acted in self- defence, but that the jury must have found you used a greater level of violence than was reasonable to meet the threat from Mr Morton as you perceived it.

[6] Having presided at your trial, I have my own…

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 Price

Details

AGLC: R v Price [2018] NZHC 811
Case: [2018] NZHC 811
Decision Date: 26 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Martin Grant Price, was convicted of murdering Mr Morton and was sentenced by the High Court of New Zealand. The Crown argued for a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 17 years, while the defence submitted that the MPI should be between 11.5 and 13 years. The court had to determine the appropriate MPI for the murder conviction, taking into account the circumstances of the offence, the offender, and the victim. The court also had to consider whether the murder involved unlawful entry into a dwelling place and a high level of brutality, which would require a minimum sentence of 17 years.

The court rejected the defendant's explanation of the events leading up to the murder and found that the murder involved unlawful entry into a dwelling place and was committed with a high level of brutality. The court found that the defendant had taken a knife with him to the scene, which was not necessary for self-defense, and had inflicted multiple stab wounds and blunt force trauma on the victim. The court also found that the defendant had left the victim with life-threatening injuries and had made no attempt to seek help. The court concluded that the murder was committed with a high level of brutality and that the defendant's previous convictions for violence were an aggravating factor.

The court sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years. The court found that the defendant's age and limited sense of remorse did not warrant a reduction in the MPI. The court also warned the defendant about the consequences of another serious violence conviction under the three strikes law.

The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment and a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years. The court ordered that the defendant be given a written first strike warning, which would inform him of the consequences of another serious violence conviction.

Orders