R v Ray - [2014] NZHC 599

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-087-000175 [2014] NZHC 599

THE QUEEN

v

THOMAS EDWARD RAY

Hearing: 28 March 2014

Appearances:

Charge: Plea:

H A Wrigley for Crown

W Lawson for Defendant

Murder

Guilty

Sentenced: 28 March 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Rotorua
W Lawson, Rotorua

R v RAY [2014] NZHC 599 [28 March 2014]

[1] Thomas Edward Ray, at the age of 32 you are for sentence in this Court having pleaded guilty to one count of murder. The sentence for murder is life imprisonment. That is the sentence the Court must impose on you. The only issue for today is the length of the minimum term that you must serve before you are eligible to apply for parole.

[2] As a preliminary matter I want to acknowledge the presence of the family of the victim who are here in Court. I also acknowledge members of your family who are here today. A number of them have travelled some distance to be here today. All of them have been affected by your actions.

[3] Mr Ray, I hope that seeing all these people in Court will make you realise the impact and effect your actions have had and will continue to have on the lives of these people.

[4] I acknowledge that you have written to the Court. In the letter you have expressed your apologies and deepest remorse to the whanau of your victim and also to your own whanau. You have said that if you could retract your actions you would. Unfortunately Mr Ray that is impossible and you and those affected by your actions will have to live with the consequences of that for some time, in some cases for the rest of their lives.

[5] The facts can be stated shortly. You and the deceased, Gareth Kaipara, who was 23 years old, both lived in Kawerau. You were well known to each other. You were related through your adopted mother. You and he often socialised and drank together.

[6] In the middle of the afternoon on 10 January 2013 the deceased came to your home. Your mother and your young nephew, who at the time was nine years old, were also there. Shortly after he arrived, you and the deceased began drinking beer together in a shed at the rear of the property. At about 4 in the afternoon more beer was purchased. When you got home you, your mother and the deceased carried on drinking in the shed at the property. After a while your mother went back inside leaving you and the deceased together. You began play fighting in the back yard. By

about half past six this had developed into a serious fight with the two of you going at each other, punching and wrestling. You were temporarily knocked out as a result of the fighting and your counsel says your leg was broken. After you regained consciousness you and the deceased shook hands. You…

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 Ray

Details

AGLC: R v Ray [2014] NZHC 599
Case: [2014] NZHC 599
Decision Date: 28 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Thomas Edward Ray was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, for the murder of Gareth Kaipara. Ray pleaded guilty to the charge of murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment, with the only issue for determination being the length of the minimum term before he would be eligible to apply for parole. The court acknowledged the presence of both the victim's and Ray's families in court, emphasising the impact of Ray's actions on all involved. Ray had expressed remorse in a letter to the court, but the judge noted that while Ray could express regret, he could not retract his actions. The facts of the case revealed a long-standing relationship between Ray and the victim, who had socialised and drank together frequently. The incident leading to the murder occurred on 10 January 2013, when Ray stabbed the victim in the neck with a large knife during an argument. Despite immediate attempts to save the victim, he died at the scene.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate length of the minimum non-parole period, taking into account relevant case law, the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act, and the circumstances of the offence. The Crown argued for a minimum non-parole period of around 11 years, while Ray's counsel submitted for a period of 10 to 10½ years. The court considered these submissions and ultimately concluded that a minimum term of 10½ years was appropriate, taking into account Ray's medical conditions, which affected his culpability, and his acceptance of responsibility through his guilty plea. The judge drew attention to the remarks of the probation officer, indicating that the Parole Board would need to consider these factors in the future.

The court sentenced Ray to life imprisonment for the murder of Gareth Kaipara, with a minimum term of 10½ years before he would be eligible to apply for parole. This decision balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the circumstances of Ray's offending and his personal background, including his medical conditions and acceptance of responsibility.

Orders