Charge: Murder

Plea:

Guilty

Appearances:

A Gordon for Crown
A Schulze for Defendant

Sentenced:

2 September 2015
Murder - life imprisonment; minimum non-parole period

11 years

SENTENCING NOTES OF TOOGOOD J

R v SCHOFIELD [2015] NZHC 2109 [2 September 2015]

[1] Martin Cranswick Schofield, you appear for sentencing after having pleaded guilty to the murder of Katrina Drummond.

[2] As Mr Schulze has properly acknowledged on your behalf, the only sentence I can impose on you is one of life imprisonment.1 The real issue I have to decide today is the length of time you must serve before becoming eligible for parole.

[3] Members of Ms Drummond’s family are present this morning and her friends, and we have heard Lana and Zara’s moving and eloquent statements. It is clear to me that the family are suffering and will continue to suffer deep grief at this tragic death. I acknowledge their presence and I extend to them the deepest sympathy of the Court.

[4] While I recognise that it will be painful for the family members to be reminded yet again of these events, it is necessary for me to explain the circumstances of Ms Drummond’s death.

Factual background

[5] Mr Schofield, Katrina Drummond lived with you as your partner at the time of her death. You had previously been married to her when you were both younger and you had two daughters together. You separated for a period and both of you maintained relationships with other partners until you rekindled your relationship at the end of 2011.

[6] At about 4:30pm on 14 April 2015, you arrived home from work. Ms Drummond was in the kitchen peeling potatoes. She had been drinking. Your
14 year-old step daughter, Casey, was also at home.

[7] You assisted Ms Drummond with the preparation of dinner. An argument developed, of such a nature that Casey contacted her half-sister, your daughter Lana, by text and told her that you and Ms Drummond were arguing again. Lana told
Casey to leave the house, which she did.

1 Sentencing Act 2002, s 102.

[8] During the argument, you questioned Ms Drummond about an unusual text you had received from her that day; and she then told you that she was seeing another man.

[9] Enraged, you went out the back door of the house and walked to the garage near the rear of the property where Ms Drummond’s car was parked. You found a Stanley knife from a drawer in the garage workbench, which you then used to carve derogatory words on the bonnet and roof of the vehicle. You also slashed the seats of the car.

[10] Grabbing a builder’s claw hammer from the workbench, you returned to the house through the back door and searched for Ms Drummond in the house. You found her in the main bedroom, where she was standing at the foot of…

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 Schofield

Details

AGLC: R v Schofield [2015] NZHC 2109
Case: [2015] NZHC 2109
Decision Date: 2 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Schofield, heard in the High Court of New Zealand, involved the sentencing of Martin Cranswick Schofield for the murder of Katrina Drummond. Schofield had pleaded guilty to the charge, and the court was tasked with determining the length of time he must serve before becoming eligible for parole. The court acknowledged the profound impact of the crime on Drummond's family, particularly her three daughters, who provided moving victim impact statements.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate starting point for the minimum term of imprisonment, the mitigating and aggravating factors to consider, and the extent of any discount for Schofield's guilty plea. The Crown argued for a starting point of 11 to 13 years, emphasizing the violence, premeditation, and devastating impact on the victims. The defence, on the other hand, argued for a starting point of 11 to 12 years, highlighting the immediate self-reporting, remorse, good character, and the reactive nature of the offence.

The court, after considering the submissions and the relevant sentencing principles, determined that the starting point should be 12 years and six months. The court granted a six-month discount for Schofield's previous good character but did not accept discounts for remorse or provocation. A 12-month discount was given for the guilty plea. The final sentence imposed was life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 11 years, ensuring Schofield serves a significant period before any consideration for parole. The court emphasized the need to hold Schofield accountable, denounce the conduct, and protect the community.

Orders