R v Schofield
[2015] NZHC 2109
•2 September 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY
CRI-2015-063-1134 [2015] NZHC 2109
THE QUEEN
v
MARTIN CRANSWICK SCHOFIELD
Charge: Murder Plea:
Guilty
Appearances:
A Gordon for Crown
A Schulze for DefendantSentenced:
2 September 2015
Murder - life imprisonment; minimum non-parole period11 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 the bed looking away from you.
[11] You entered the bedroom and struck Ms Drummond on the back of the head with the hammer, with sufficient force to cause her to fall to the ground. She landed face down. You then stood over her and directed several blows to the back of her head.
[12] You dropped the hammer by Ms Drummond’s body and left the bedroom, closing the door behind you. You drove your utility vehicle to the Taupo Police Station where you approached the public counter and advised the attending Constable that you had just killed your partner.
[13] At the Police Station you admitted the facts I have outlined. You said Ms Drummond’s use of alcohol was a major issue in your relationship. You claimed you had “lost it” after she told you that she had been seeing another man.
[14] Ms Drummond suffered extreme trauma to the head which was not survivable. She was pronounced dead at the scene of your crime.
[15] The post mortem examination revealed that Ms Drummond sustained at least seven blows to the back right of her head, which caused an extensive and severe
open injury to her skull and brain extending over an area 18 cm by 18 cm. The blows caused multiple fractures to the skull.
Victim impact statements
[16] Although Ms Drummond was the primary victim of this crime, your actions affected a much wider range of victims; most significantly, her daughters. I have had the benefit of reading and hearing two victim impact statements expressing the views of Katrina Drummond’s three devoted daughters. They describe her as an “amazing” and “beautiful” person and it is clear that her death, and the manner of it, has been devastating for them. That is especially so for Casey who, at the age of only 14, has lost the person whom your 29-year old daughter Lana describes as Casey’s best friend. Your other daughter Zara, who is 25, describes her mother as her “go to person for EVERYTHING.”
[17] Lana says there are no words to describe the feeling of losing her mother as a result of your actions; that nobody will ever be able to replace her; and that her sisters and she will continue to suffer each day, at home, at work and at school. Lana speaks resentfully of your lack of interest in, or support for, Zara and her as they were growing up. She describes your behaviour towards her mother, after your reunion, as controlling and entirely self-focused. She attributes Katrina’s violent death at your hands to your failure to accept that she no longer loved you and that you needed to move on. Instead, Lana says you took her mother’s life because you believed she had no right to be with anyone else.
[18] Lana lived at the house with Ms Drummond, Casey and you: She came home to find her mother brutally murdered. Now Lana, her husband and Casey can no longer live in the house and it seems that although they have to meet the substantial holding costs and the lawyers’ bills resulting from their mother’s death, you and not they will be the beneficiary of the inevitable sale.
[19] Your other daughter, Zara, says that the damage you have caused is irreparable. No amount of remorse, apology or reparation will ever fill the hole that you have left in her life. Zara recently got engaged and is now pregnant. She will
no longer have the pleasure of her mother walking her down the aisle and says she has lost “an amazing grandmother” to her unborn child. She says she finds it scary that she will have to go through her first pregnancy without her mother’s help. Zara disputes your account of the extent of her mother’s drinking and says that she will never forgive you for what you did.
Personal circumstances
[20] You are 50 years old. Prior to this offence, you worked in Taupo for a pest eradication company. As well as being father to Lana and Zara, you have a son with another woman.
[21] You have only one minor conviction in 1982 so I treat you as a first offender.
Pre-sentence report
[22] The writer of the pre-sentence report I have received assesses you as presenting a high risk of reoffending, basing her opinion on the seriousness of your offending and your lack of genuine remorse. The report writer says that, despite pleading guilty to murder, you made numerous attempts during the interview with her to justify your actions and to shift the blame onto your defenceless victim. You said Katrina was an alcoholic and that her alcoholism left you physically and mentally drained. You emphasised to the probation officer that the post mortem analysis showed she was over the drink/driving limit at the time of her death. You said you lost it and snapped when she told you she was seeing another man.
[23] The report writer expresses concern at your inability to acknowledge your responsibility for the severe and deliberate violence of the offending, or the full extent of the consequences of Ms Drummond’s death for others. You said you have written to your children and, although you have had no response from them, you think time will heal the damage to your relationship which has occurred. That shows little insight into the seriousness of your actions. Lana’s account of your letters, which she describes as “chatty” and explaining how you are in a prison for people who aren’t “bad”, underscores the probation officer’s particular concern at being told
you think you have no rehabilitative needs to address. Your letters show a
remarkable lack of empathy for the effect of your crime on Katrina’s family.
Minimum period of imprisonment – principles
[24] I have said already that the law requires that you be sentenced to life imprisonment. I am required also to determine what minimum period of imprisonment you must serve before you are eligible to apply for parole. That cannot be less than 10 years' imprisonment and it needs to be the minimum term that I consider necessary to take proper account of the purposes and principles of sentencing set out in the Sentencing Act.2
[25] The relevant purposes I have particularly taken into account are to hold you accountable for the harm done to Ms Drummond, her daughters and the community, which suffers also from this type of offending; and to promote in you a sense of responsibility for, and acknowledgement of, that harm. You have some considerable way to go in that regard. I also need to recognise that your conduct must be denounced; that you and others should be deterred from such offending, especially given the appallingly high incidence of domestic violence and domestic homicide in New Zealand; and that the community, for some time to come, must be protected from you.
[26] While this was very serious offending, I must not impose a sentence that is crushing; as far as possible, the Court is required to assist in your rehabilitation and eventual re-integration.
[27] For a murder committed with a high level of brutality, cruelty, depravity or callousness the Court is required to impose a minimum period of imprisonment of at least 17 years unless it would be manifestly unjust to do so.3 While this case has aspects of brutality to it, the Crown does not suggest that the threshold for a 17-year
minimum term has been met. I agree.
2 Sections 7 and 8.
3 Section 104(1)(e).
[28] The most common qualifying characteristic is where the attack is prolonged and particularly violent. I have considered other cases involving multiple blows with a blunt weapon to the head where that standard has been met and I do not believe that your offending, although seriously violent, is comparable.4 Nevertheless, I am required to consider whether a 10-year minimum term, which is the least I can impose in the circumstances, would be adequate.
Submissions
Crown submissions
[29] I turn to address counsel’s submissions. For the Crown, Ms Gordon
identifies a number of aggravating factors in your offending with which I agree:
(a) First, the level of violence and the use of a weapon. You used a claw hammer to kill Ms Drummond, striking her forcefully on the back of the head at least seven times and causing severely traumatic head injuries.
(b)Second, vulnerability. Ms Drummond was alone in her own home at the time of the attack. The surprise attack on her was unprovoked and from behind. She was defenceless.
(c) Next, premeditation. On becoming angry, you left the house; went into the garage; damaged the car; took the hammer from the drawer and returned to the house to seek out your victim. The Crown says that this exhibits a degree of premeditation and forethought.
(d)Fourth, victim impact. The murder has had a devastating impact on Ms Drummond’s three daughters, as they have described. They doubt they will ever fully recover from the death of their mother in this way, or from the loss of her support and affection. Casey, in particular has
been dealt a devastating blow at a vulnerable age.
4 R v Morris [2012] NZHC 616; R v Fraser HC Christchurch CRI-2009-061-244, 9 July 2009; R v
Uluakiola HC Auckland CRI-2005 952-2580, 17 March 2006.
[30] The Crown acknowledges that you immediately contacted the Police to report the murder. In Ms Gordon’s submission, the self-reporting does not materially mitigate the offending. The Crown says the fact that you did not try to cover up or hide from your offending is the absence of an aggravating factor. I certainly do not regard it, in the circumstances, as a mitigating factor that could count in your favour. There was never any prospect that you might have a defence to the charge of murder. You are entitled, however, to recognition by a discounted sentence for pleading guilty.
[31] The Crown submits that the starting point for the minimum period should be in the region of 11 to 13 years’ imprisonment. It is argued that you should only get modest discounts for previous good character and an early guilty plea. That is because the case against you was very strong. Ms Gordon also says you should not receive an additional discount for remorse.
Defence submissions
[32] Mr Schulze submits that the aggravating features of your offending are limited to actual violence and the use of a weapon. He emphasises that any premeditation was minimal and argues that there was no evidence that you had pre- planned the assault; rather, that you just snapped after hearing of Ms Drummond’s infidelity. Mr Schulze says this is evidenced by the fact that your offending occurred in a relatively short period of time from when you went to the garage to vandalise the car and then returned to the house with the claw hammer. He mentions, as well, what seems to be an accumulating concern on your part for what was happening in your relationship.
[33] Mr Schulze argues that a number of mitigating factors are relevant:
(a) Your guilty plea. You immediately went to the Police on your own volition and made full admissions. A not guilty plea was entered at the second appearance date while your counsel engaged an expert to address issues about your fitness to stand trial; but as soon as the expert report had been completed, you pleaded guilty.
(b)Remorse. The comments in the pre-sentence report and the view of the probation officer are not accepted by your counsel as a true reflection of your remorse which Mr Schulze says is extreme. He points to the letter you have written to the Court in which you acknowledge, among other things, that what you call your “despicable actions” have robbed your family and daughters of a lovely, caring mother and effectively destroyed a loving and close family unit.
(c) Previous good character. The offending, Mr Schulze says, was out of character. You have no history of violence; you served in the armed forces for 12 years and have maintained regular employment.
(d)Provocation. I come to the question of provocation. Mr Schulze says the offending was entirely reactive rather than premeditated. The relationship difficulties had been building up for some time leading to the offending and when you finally learnt of Ms Drummond’s infidelity, you snapped.
[34] Your counsel submits that any assessment of a minimum term of imprisonment should start with a period of between 11 and 12 years and that, after consideration of personal mitigating factors and the guilty plea, a minimum period of
10 years’ imprisonment would be appropriate.
Starting point
[35] In coming to my views on these matters, I have been assisted by the submissions of experienced counsel appearing for the Crown and you, and I have taken into account the need for consistency in sentencing and what was done in comparable cases.5 Those sentencing decisions can only provide broad guidance as to what your sentence will be, as each case is invariably unique. The weight to be
given to the various factors, in terms of both the circumstances of the offence and of
5 R v Foley [2015] NZHC 955; R v Hepana [2014] NZHC 504; R v Callaghan [2012] NZHC 596;
R v Tait HC Tauranga CRI-2010-070-5571, 16 September 2011; R v Pirini HC Whangarei CRI-
2010-027-0448, 22 April 2010; R v Ngeru HC Wellington CRI-2008-085-5996, 11 December
2009.
the circumstances offender, necessarily differs from case to case. Ultimately, fixing the minimum period of imprisonment is not an exact science and it requires me to exercise my own judgment.6
[36] Your attack on Ms Drummond was unprovoked and cowardly. It involved a heavy, blunt instrument and resulted in massive head injuries. Ms Drummond had her back to you when you attacked her and she had no way of defending herself. While I accept that your attack was not planned and that it arose from a jealous rage, it was not a spontaneous, momentary act. You took time to go out to the shed, where you vented your anger in damaging the car. You found the hammer and then you searched around the house for Ms Drummond. You had only one intent and you carried it out brutally.
[37] In all of the circumstances, I have reached the view, Mr Schofield, that the starting point for the minimum period of imprisonment should be towards the upper end of the range recommended by the Crown.7 Taking Mr Schulze’s submissions into account, I adopt, as a starting point, a minimum term of 12 years and six months’ imprisonment as being sufficient to sheet home to you your responsibility for the harm you have done; to give effect to the need to denounce your conduct; to
deter both yourself and other offenders; and to protect the community.
Discount for personal circumstances
[38] I turn to consider your personal circumstances. I am prepared to give you a modest discount for your previous good character by reducing the minimum period
by six months.
6 R v Howse [2003] 3 NZLR 767.
7 I consider the nature of the offending to be more or less comparable to the offending in R v Foley, R v Callaghan and R v Tait (all above n 5) because the injuries caused by the present offending exhibits similar levels of brutality. The offending is also comparable to that in R v Prole, above n 5, in that it involved a similar degree of premeditation. The present offending
does not, however, appear to be quite as serious in that in R v Pirini, above n 5. Nor does it
involve the unlawful entry into the victim’s property, which was a key aggravating factor in R v Hepana, above n 5. R v Ngeru, above n 5 is of less assistance in setting a starting point because Gendall J did not take the three-step approach to sentencing – the minimum period of 12 years’ imprisonment in that case was reached after having regard to both the circumstances of the offending and the offender.
[39] I have read your letter. You express what you say is sincere remorse. But I do not accept Mr Schulze’s contention that you have demonstrated “extreme remorse”. The pre-sentence report, describing your attempts to pass blame to your victim, reflects what Lana says about your wanting the other members of the family to share also in your guilt. Against the background of those views, I agree with the Crown Solicitor that you should not get any discount for remorse beyond that which is recognised in the discount I must give for your guilty plea.
[40] Nor do I accept that any discount should be given on the grounds of provocation. Provocation is relevant in situations where the offender has been subjected to sustained physical or emotional abuse by the victim.8 That is certainly not the case here. There is simply no basis on which your jealous reaction on this occasion can mitigate the seriousness of what you did.
Guilty plea
[41] Finally, I assess the discount that I must give for your guilty plea. You pleaded guilty at the earliest possible opportunity after proper inquiries into your mental health. You have avoided the need for a costly trial and, significantly, you have spared Lana, Zara and Casey from the anguish of going through a criminal jury trial which would have been a traumatic experience for them.
[42] I acknowledge, however, that your guilty plea was entered in the realisation that you would inevitably have been found guilty of this crime if it had gone to trial. In such circumstances, I consider that a discount of no more than 12 months should be taken off the minimum period of imprisonment.
Sentence
[43] Please stand Mr Schofield.
[44] I sentence you to life imprisonment and I impose a minimum non-parole period of 11 years. That is not a finite sentence. The effective sentence is life
8 See, for example, R v Patton [2009] NZCA 155.
imprisonment and 11 years must pass before you can even be considered for release. Whether and, if so, when you are released after that period is a decision for the Parole Board. That decision will depend principally on whether you continue to pose a threat to the community. If you re-offend or breach a condition of any release parole, you will be recalled to prison to continue serving your sentence.
[45] Please stand down.
…………………………….
Toogood J
10
3
0