R v Ransfield - [2020] NZHC 2487

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…

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 Ransfield

Details

AGLC: R v Ransfield [2020] NZHC 2487
Case: [2020] NZHC 2487
Decision Date: 23 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Rotorua Registry, the defendant, Hughie Ransfield, was convicted of murdering his friend, Māui. The primary legal issue the court had to address was determining the minimum period of imprisonment Ransfield must serve. The court was tasked with balancing the aggravating factors of the crime, such as the extreme violence and use of a weapon, against mitigating factors, including Ransfield's personal circumstances and lack of a history of violent offending.

Justice Whata found that although the murder involved extreme violence, it did not reach the level of brutality, cruelty, depravity, or callousness that would warrant a 17-year minimum period of imprisonment under Section 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002. Instead, the court adopted a starting point of 16 years for the minimum period of imprisonment, considering cases with similar levels of violence but ultimately reducing it to 14 years after accounting for Ransfield's personal mitigating factors and the substantial discount for his guilty plea. The court concluded that a 14-year minimum period of imprisonment adequately served the purposes of holding Ransfield accountable, denouncing his conduct, deterring similar offending, and protecting the community.

The final orders of the court were that Hughie Ransfield be sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of 14 years. He was also reminded of his first strike under the Sentencing Act, indicating that any further serious offending could lead to more severe consequences.

Orders