R v Ransfield
[2020] NZHC 2487
•23 September 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA
TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE
CRI-2020-063-1525
[2020] NZHC 2487
THE QUEEN v
HUGHIE RANSFIELD
Hearing: 23 September 2020 Counsel:
A Gordon for Crown
A Ngapo-Lipscombe on instructions from M Dorset for Defendant
Sentence:
23 September 2020
SENTENCING NOTES OF WHATA J
Solicitors: Pollett Legal Limited, Tauranga
R v RANSFIELD [2020] NZHC 2487 [23 September 2020]
[1] Mr Ransfield, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of murder. The sentence for murder is life imprisonment. The key issue for me to determine is the minimum period of the sentence which you must serve.
[2] Before I go further, I wish to acknowledge the victim, Māui and his partner and whānau.
E te whānau e hui nei ki roto i tēnei kōti, tēnā koutou.
Ka nui te aroha ki a koutou katoa kua pāngia ki tēnei aituā kino. Nā reira, haere ngā mate.
Nau mai e te hunga ora.
To the family gathered in this court, greetings.
I have great aroha for all who have been touched by this terrible tragedy. And so farewell to the dead;
Welcome to the living.
Facts
[3] Mr Ransfield, you and Māui had been friends for about 20 years. On the afternoon of 20 May 2020, you both purchased a box of beer from a nearby liquor store and some cannabis, before returning to your sister’s address on Te Ngae Road, Rotorua. You sat in a shed at the rear of the property consuming alcohol and cannabis.
[4] At about 4.00 pm, you had consumed about half a box of beer each. You asked Māui about some money you believed he owed you. According to you, Māui laughed at you and told you to “get fucked”. This enraged you. You retrieved a nearby piece of metal pipe, measuring approximately 75 cms in length. You wielded the pipe with two hands and struck Māui, who was seated on a couch, to the head multiple times, as hard as you could. The ferocity of your blows caused the metal pipe to break in two. You continued to strike Māui to the head with the remaining half of the metal pipe to ensure he didn’t get up.
[5] Following the attack, you phoned emergency services, requesting ambulance and police. You advised that you had “bashed” your friend and that you thought you had killed him.
Injuries
[6] Māui suffered significant blunt force trauma to the back of his head and died as a result of his injuries. The injuries showed that there were multiple blows to his head with substantial force. The blows fractured the skull and lacerated the dura and caused extensive subdural and subarachnoid haemorrhage.
Your comments
[7] In explanation, you stated that you became angry at Māui for telling you to “get fucked” and that he “signed his own death warrant for not paying his tick”, which you said was approximately $3,500.
[8] You acknowledged that you kept hitting Māui until he couldn't get up and until he stopped moving. When asked how hard the blows were on a scale of 1 to 10, you stated that the blows were a 10, being as hard as you could hit Māui with the metal pole.
[9] There are also records of you repeatedly apologising to Māui for what you had done. More specifically, you were heard to say, “Sorry, my brother, for what I have done”. You were also seen to vomit at about that time.
Personal circumstances
[10] Mr Ransfield, I now turn to your personal circumstances. I have had the benefit of a PAC report, a s 27 report and a mental health report. You are 59 years of age. You had a difficult upbringing. You are profoundly deaf, but this was not detected until you were 17 years old. Your deafness caused you considerable difficulties, both at home and at school. This led to social isolation and you left school at a relatively young age. You found employment but tragedy struck when, in 2003, you were in a car accident, in which you suffered major injuries. You also report to having lost your
then-partner and nine-year-old daughter in that accident. You were out of employment for over ten years following the incident.
[11] Your s 27 report says you identify as Māori, of Te Arawa with whakapapa links to several hapū. It appears you became alienated from the Māori world and report noting that you don’t speak Māori because, among other reasons, the Māori language “didn’t put food on the table”. The report also refers to stints in prison, but you have no record of prior prison sentences. It refers to other acts of violence committed by you, for which there is no corresponding record. The s 27 report also notes that as a consequence of your upbringing and the accident, your wellbeing has been significantly damaged.
[12] The PAC report refers to you having a “low” likelihood of reoffending, given your three previous convictions in the last decade and significant gaps in your earlier offending. The report notes it is difficult to identify your level of remorse. You make statements that you are “very sorry”, as well as statements such as “… but he owed me a lot of money … he laughed at me … if he paid me a little bit, I would’ve accepted it, instead he gave me nothing …”
[13] The PAC report also notes that it appears you were living with your sister at the time of the offending, but that she has not made contact in response to attempts to reach her. However, a cousin, Mr Rewereta who has known you for over twenty years, advised that your offending is out of character and that he was very shocked to hear about it. The report notes that you have adult children.
[14] Your mental health assessment refers to your 2003 accident but notes that neither your medical records nor your sister refer to any loss of lives in the accident. It notes that you get extremely distressed at the thought of driving or having to travel through the area where the accident happened. Your sister said she had not been aware of your past relationships or that you had children. She said she had been present at your bedside when you were in hospital. She said she was surprised to recently hear that you had lost your partner and a child in the accident.
[15] The report also refers to your descriptions of experiencing recurrent and intrusive symptoms characterised by nightmares, flashbacks and current intrusive memories following the accident. The report notes that, although your condition following the accident appears to be consistent with aspects of a diagnosis of PTSD, on balance, the assessment concludes you do not fulfil most of the criteria for such a diagnosis. It says that you do fulfil the diagnosis criteria for alcohol and cannabis use disorder.
Victim impact statement
[16] I also have the victim impact statement of Ms Hune-Hona and she has spoken to me today. She is the hoa rangatira ō Māui. She speaks of his whakapapa:
Ko Hikurangi tōna maunga Ko Tūwhakaiōra tōna hapu.
Ko Tāmati Ngakaho tōna tupuna rongonui. Ko Toko Huna Houkāmau tōna pāpā.
Ko Kohimate Ngakaho Waihi tōna māmā.
[17]She speaks of Māui’s skills:
He whakairo tangata He tangata mahi toi
He toa i te hutu pōro me te kirikiti He matua
He tiaki mokopuna
[18]The harm to his whānau is expressed in the following terms:
Nā te kākahu taratara kua pania i te whānau pani i ōnā mate kōkurutanga kākahu haehae kia Māui Houkāmau. Me pēhea te ara tika i wēnei āhuatanga kikino?
The murder ambush on Māui, is likened to prickly thorns on a coat that the whānau are forced to wear through no fault of our own. How do we rise from this irrevocable and heinous cowardly act?
Framework for sentencing
[19]Turning then to the framework for sentencing that I must follow.
[20] First, I must impose a life sentence with a 10-year minimum period of imprisonment unless it would be manifestly unjust to do so.1
[21] Secondly, if I impose a life sentence and, if one or more of the aggravating factors specified at s 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002 are present, I must impose a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years, unless that would be manifestly unjust.2
[22] Third, in fixing a minimum period of imprisonment, I must have regard to the purposes3 and principles4 of sentencing and my sentence must satisfy the following purposes:5
(a)holding you accountable for the harm you have done to Māui and to the community and to his whānau;
(b)denouncing your conduct;
(c)deter you and others from committing the same or similar offending; and
(d)protecting the community.
Life imprisonment, but not a 17-year minimum period of imprisonment
[23] I am satisfied that it would not be manifestly unjust to impose a sentence of life imprisonment with at least a minimum period of 10 years. The following aggravating factors are key in this regard:
1 Sentencing Act 2002, ss 102 and 103.
2 Section 104.
3 Section 7.
4 Section 8.
5 Section 103(2)(a)-(d).
(a)Extreme violence and use of a weapon – you struck Māui to the head multiple times with a metal steel pipe and with such force that it broke.
(b)Māui was vulnerable - your attack on him would have been unexpected.
[24] I also acknowledge the huge harm to Māui and to his whānau too. There are no mitigating factors relevant to the offending, although I acknowledge that you called the ambulance services almost immediately.
[25] I turn then to consider the start point for a minimum period of imprisonment, assuming s 104 is not engaged. I have found the recent sentence in R v Mete6 provides a helpful reference point. In that case, the offender struck his partner numerous times in the face, aiming at her nose and eyes. The sheer force and number of blows caused multiple fractures to her skull. Sometime after, the offender also used an extension cord to tie the victim’s hands together in front of her and around her neck. The Court adopted a starting point of 16 years. The Court did go on to consider that s 104 was engaged. However, the Court found that a minimum 17-year minimum period of imprisonment sentence to be manifestly unjust. In the result, the Court imposed an end minimum period of 14 years’ imprisonment, after personal mitigating factors were taken into account. That case did not involve an attack with a weapon, but Mete was another example of domestic violence against women, engaging more forcefully the principles of deterrence and denunciation. I am therefore content to adopt a 16-year minimum period of imprisonment starting point for your offending, assuming for that purpose s 104 is not engaged.
[26] I turn then to take into account your personal mitigating factors. You struggled with undiagnosed deafness during a difficult upbringing, which it seems led to, and exacerbates, ongoing feelings of isolation and resentment. I also am sure that this has manifested itself in disconnection from your whānau, none of whom were present today. You suffer from ongoing physical and emotional effects of the serious accident in 2003. You have substance abuse problems. You also plainly have difficulties controlling your anger. All of these factors are a potentially potent mix, as I think the present offending has horribly revealed. However, you do not have a history of violent
6 R v Mete [2020] NZHC 1573.
offending and the PAC report states that your risk of reoffending in similar kind is low. All of this is relevant, because your potential for rehabilitation is real and to be encouraged, even though your sentence must still be a lengthy one. In addition, you are 59, so you will be well into your seventies before you become eligible to be released. That is a further factor favouring a merciful approach. I acknowledge you sought kanohi ki te kanohi meeting with the whānau.
[27] I have considered whether you should be given a discount for remorse. The information relating to your remorse is mixed. At the time of the offending and subsequently, you have apologised for what you have done. However, you have also been heard to blame the victim, saying it would not have happened had he paid what you were owed. I acknowledge Ms Ngapo-Lipscombe’s submission that your utterances were of an unsophisticated man looking for answers for what you had done. I accept this means that I should not view your utterances in the negative or as negative factors. But, overall, I consider that the issue of remorse to be a neutral factor.
[28]You are also entitled to a substantial discount for guilty plea.
[29] The total discount for these matters must, however, be moderated by the fact that your crime is of the most serious kind. In Mete, the Court allowed two years, discounting factors similar to yours. I think a two-year discount is appropriate overall.
[30] Accordingly, assuming s 104 is not engaged, I would fix your minimum period of imprisonment at 14 years.
[31] I now consider whether I should impose a minimum sentence of 17 years’ imprisonment. As earlier stated, under s 104, I must impose a minimum sentence of 17 years’ imprisonment in certain circumstances, unless it is manifestly unjust to do so. The defined circumstances include where “the murder was committed with a high level of brutality, cruelty, depravity or callousness”.7 Unfortunately, I must now make an assessment which requires me to compare the offending to other offending of similar kind.
7 Section 104(1)(e).
[32] I would like the whānau to know and his loved ones to know that nothing I say here is intended to diminish the devastating effects of Mr Ransfield’s hara on you.
[33] Ms Gordon submits that the murder was committed with a high level of brutality and callousness. In support of this submission, Ms Gordon refers to two cases, R v Marinovich8 and R v Vea.9
[34] In Marinovich, Mr Marinovich was found guilty of murdering his mother. In that case, Mr Marinovich placed his hands around his mother’s neck and attempted to strangle her. He then picked up a hammer and struck her head at least ten times. There was evidence of defensive wounds. In my view, the mother’s vulnerability, together with the fact that there were defensive wounds, indicate a level of brutality and callousness that is not present in this case.
[35] In R v Vea, Mr Vea attacked the victim with a machete, hit him multiple times and ignored the victim’s pleas for mercy. The victim suffered a wide range of traumatic injuries, including severance of the spinal cord and vertebrae at the base of the skull. He also had lacerations around his neck and shoulders with some cutting through to the bone. There was also some evidence of premeditation. Mr Vea’s actions afterwards were described both as “measured and calm.” Again, in my view, the callousness and viciousness in that case was appreciably higher than this case.
[36] I was also referred to several other authorities where 17-year minimum periods of imprisonment were imposed, including R v Te Hiko,10 R v Aporo,11 and R v Fraser.12 I do not propose to summarise them. I am satisfied they all have features which are more aggravating than your offending. In particular, in my view, the nature and duration of the violence was more severe in each case.
[37] I have also considered a number of authorities cited in the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Te Hiko, where minimum sentences of imprisonment of 17
8 R v Marinovich [2020] NZHC 1160.
9 R v Vea [2019] NZHC 1587.
10 R v Te Hiko [2019] NZCA 41.
11 R v Aporo HC Palmerston North CRI-2005-054-2872, 20 October 2006.
12 R v Fraser HC Christchurch CRI-2009-061-000244, 9 July 2009.
years were not imposed.13 These include R v Eddy,14 R v Akuhata15 and R v Callaghan.16
[38] In Eddy, the offender went to the victim’s house very early one morning before she went to work, punched her so that she could not fight back, stabbed her and then viciously cut her throat. A starting point of 15 years minimum period of imprisonment was adopted.
[39] In Akuhata, the offender threw the victim off a bridge and then went down to the river below and held the victim under the water to ensure that she died. A starting point of 17 years minimum imprisonment was also adopted in that case, with an end sentence imposed of 15 years, after taking into account personal factors.
[40] In Callaghan, during the course of a discussion with the victim, something happened which led the offender to strike the victim a number of times about her head and face. During the assault, the offender used a blunt object, likely a child’s baseball bat. He inflicted at least eight blows around her head and face, leaving multiple lacerations to her head. The victim died from the extensive injuries inflicted on her. In that case, the Court adopted a minimum period of imprisonment of 11 years for the murder.
[41] I consider that your offending, the callousness and brutality of it, to be comparable to that in Eddy and Akuhata, but materially worse than the offending in Callaghan. It is worse than Callaghan because the degree of force that would have been required to break the metal rod in this case was clearly greater than the force used in that case.
[42] Overall, therefore, I consider your offending is comparable to Eddy, Akuhata, and to Mete, though, as I have already noted, your offending did not involve domestic violence against women. I therefore do not consider s 104 is engaged. I wish to add that, given your personal circumstances, including your disability, your age, your
13 See footnote 5.
14 R v Eddy [2014] NZHC 1543.
15 R v Akuhata [2015] NZHC 1098.
16 R v Callaghan [2012] NZHC 596.
upbringing, had it been necessary to do so, I would have found it manifestly unjust to impose a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years.
[43] In the result, I consider that a 14-year minimum period of imprisonment is sufficient to recognise the brutality of your offending and to make you accountable for what you have done, to denounce your conduct, to deter others from doing it and to protect the public.
[44] Mr Ransfield, could you please return to the dock. Mr Ransfield, on the charge of murder, I sentence you to life imprisonment with a minimum period of 14 years.
[45] You have already been given your first strike, but I remind you that you are subject to a first strike. Please stand down.
3
7
0