Legal Research
Cases
R v Reddington

R v Reddington

Case [2024] NZHC 3689 5 December 2024

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Brutality

Vulnerability of Victim

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

Personal Circumstances

Minimum Period of Imprisonment

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS,

OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF CONNECTED

PERSON (DECEASED’S TEENAGE SON) PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2023-035-546

[2024] NZHC 3689

THE KING

v

WIRE MANUEL REDDINGTON

Hearing: 5 December 2024

Appearances:

T S Jenkin for Crown

I R Hard and M G Kilbride for Defendant

Date:

5 December 2024

SENTENCING REMARKS OF McHERRON J

[1] Wire Reddington, you have been found guilty by a jury of the murder of Jamie Gill. I must now sentence you.

[2] The main issues I will decide today are whether you should receive a sentence of life imprisonment and, if so, how long is the minimum term of imprisonment before you can apply for parole.1

1 Sentencing Act 2002, ss 102–104. There is a presumption of life imprisonment unless a sentence of life imprisonment would be manifestly unjust.

R v REDDINGTON [2024] NZHC 3689 [5 December 2024]

Factual background

[3] I will sentence you based on the facts that I accept as proved, as the Judge who presided over your trial, and based on the essential elements of the charge of murder, which the jury found were proved.

[4] There is no significant dispute about the facts, although your lawyer says you have no reliable memory of what happened.

[5] Mr Gill had been staying with you, your brother Tipene and your mother Bella at Te Kopi Rd in the days leading up to his death. You said you told Mr Gill he would be safe with you. In a phone call, you also told Mr Gill’s mother Lyn he was safe and you would care for him.

[6] You were smoking methamphetamine and drinking heavily on 23 and 24 June 2023. At one stage you consumed prescription medication belonging to Mr Gill.

[7] On the Friday night, the 23rd of June, you accused Mr Gill of stealing and punched him in the face causing a bloody nose. The following evening, you started saying that people were after Mr Gill. You accused him (without any foundation) of being a rapist and of hiding medication from you. Tipene told you not to bring your mates home and pick on them. You slapped Mr Gill on the mouth. Tipene intervened and your mother, Bella, broke up the fight.

[8] Tipene left to help put your mother to bed. When he returned, you and Mr Gill were on the ground fighting in front of the bed in the sleepout. You had stabbed Mr Gill with a pair of scissors, causing puncture wounds to his left upper back and arm. Mr Gill also had a cut to his head and was bleeding from his mouth. There was blood on the wall. Tipene broke up the fight and separated you and Mr Gill by locking you out of the sleepout.

[9] After you calmed down, you, Tipene and Mr Gill kept drinking…

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 Reddington

Details

AGLC: R v Reddington [2024] NZHC 3689
Case: [2024] NZHC 3689
Decision Date: 5 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Reddington involved the sentencing of Wire Manuel Reddington, who was found guilty of the murder of Jamie Gill. The High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry, presided over the case. The primary legal issues were whether Reddington should receive a life sentence and, if so, the minimum term of imprisonment before parole eligibility.

The court considered the brutality and vulnerability factors in determining the appropriate sentence. The court found that the murder was carried out with a high level of brutality and that Mr. Gill was particularly vulnerable, justifying a minimum term of imprisonment of at least 17 years under section 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002. However, the court also acknowledged Reddington's challenging personal circumstances, including a deprived and neglectful upbringing, extreme violence, a traumatic brain injury, and post-traumatic stress disorder. These factors, along with the court's assessment of Reddington's culpability at the lower end of section 104(1), led to the conclusion that a 17-year minimum period of imprisonment would be manifestly unjust. Consequently, the court imposed a minimum term of 14 years’ imprisonment, reflecting the significance of the offending, the principles and purposes of sentencing, and Reddington's personal circumstances.

Orders