R v Scott - [2016] NZHC 1918

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2016-019-1257 [2016] NZHC 1918

THE QUEEN

v

BRENDON SCOTT

Hearing: 18 August 2016

Appearances:

R G Douch for the Crown
K L Tustin for the Defendant

Sentence:

18 August 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF MUIR J

Counsel/Solicitors:
R G Douch, Almao Douch, Hamilton
K L Tustin, Barrister, Hamilton

R v SCOTT [2016] NZHC 1918 [18 August 2016]

[1] Mr Scott, you appear today to be sentenced on one charge of manslaughter to which you pleaded guilty at the earliest practical opportunity.

Factual background

[2] You and the victim, Ms Raewyn Green, had been in a relationship for approximately one year. You are 52 years old and Ms Green was 50. From time to time Ms Green would live with you in your one bedroom accommodation, although co-habitation was sporadic because the relationship was volatile. The agreed summary of facts records numerous instances of domestic violence perpetrated on the victim. A frequent theme of your arguments was your obsession with Ms Green’s monogamy or otherwise.

[3] On the day of Ms Green’s death you both went to a liquor store early in the morning and purchased two dozen beers. In that act was probably the genesis of everything that later happened that day. You returned to your house and started drinking. You invited your neighbour over, and she joined you at your address. By the early afternoon you had finished that quantity of beer, and made a second trip to the liquor store. All three of you then went to the neighbour’s house to continue drinking.

[4] You confirmed that you had been using methamphetamine that afternoon or

early evening, smoking “one point”.

[5] Over the course of the afternoon you became, not unexpectedly given the volume of alcohol that had been consumed, aggressive and argumentative, and accused Ms Green of being unfaithful with another local man. After a number of heated arguments at the neighbour’s property you and Ms Green returned to your own address.

[6] Sometime later the neighbour came over to check on Ms Green, and was invited to stay and continue drinking which she did. However, you continued verbally abusing Ms Green and making allegations about her alleged unfaithfulness. At one point you followed Ms Green into the bedroom and were there for a short period before returning to the lounge.

[7] The neighbour went into the bedroom herself and noticed that Ms Green was crying and that one side of her face was swollen. She left at nightfall, at which point she says you were still directing a torrent of verbal abuse at Ms Green.

[8] Sometime later, you again hit Ms Green on what, from the medical evidence, appears to have been multiple occasions, causing her in consequence of either one or the cumulative blows to become unresponsive. You tried to revive her but were unable to do so, and dragged her outside. Another neighbour saw this, and called the ambulance for assistance. Meanwhile, you went over…

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 Scott

Details

AGLC: R v Scott [2016] NZHC 1918
Case: [2016] NZHC 1918
Decision Date: 18 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the defendant, Brendon Scott, was sentenced for the manslaughter of his partner, Ms Raewyn Green. The court was required to decide on the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the principles and purposes of sentencing outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002. The primary purpose of sentencing was to hold the defendant accountable for the death of Ms Green, and to denounce his conduct. The court also needed to consider the gravity of the offending, the defendant's level of culpability, and the need to achieve consistency with sentencing levels imposed in analogous cases.

The court began by setting a starting point for the sentence by considering the offending in isolation, removed from any personal features. The court found that the level of violence was serious, and the victim was particularly vulnerable due to the disparities in their respective sizes and strengths. The court also considered the aggravating factors present in this case, such as the victim's vulnerability and the multiple individual assaults over an extended period. After considering the Taueki guidelines and comparable manslaughter cases, the court determined that a starting point of eight years' imprisonment was appropriate.

The court then made necessary adjustments for personal features of the defendant, such as his remorse and guilty plea. Although the defendant claimed to be remorseful, the court found that his demonstrations of remorse were not sufficiently compelling to warrant a discount additional to that implicit in his guilty plea. The court accepted that the defendant's guilty plea was at the earliest possible time, and a full 25 per cent discount was warranted.

The court also considered the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) for this case. The Crown sought a 50 per cent MPI on the basis that it was necessary to denounce the conduct, deter others, and protect the community from the defendant. The court found that an MPI of two years and nine months was appropriate due to the victim's particular vulnerability, the extended nature of the assault on her, the history of domestic violence in the relationship, and the necessity to strongly denounce and deter such violence in all its forms.

The final sentence imposed on the defendant was six years' imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of two years and nine months before being eligible for parole.

Orders