R v Scott - [2016] NZHC 290

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-044-4451 [2016] NZHC 290

THE QUEEN

v

BRENT DONOVAN SCOTT

Hearing: 26 February 2016

Appearances:

R M McCoubrey for Crown
M J Dyhrberg QC for Defendant

Date:

26 February 2016

SENTENCING REMARKS OF M PETERS J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Crown Solicitor, Auckland

Counsel: M J Dyhrberg QC, Auckland

R v SCOTT [2016] NZHC 290 [26 February 2016]

Introduction1

[1] Mr Scott, you are for sentence on the following charges, to which you pleaded guilty on 16 December 2015. The first is the murder of your estranged wife, Heidi Welman-Scott and you are also for sentence on the attempted murder of your stepdaughter, Taryn Welman, and her partner, Matija Miletic.2

[2] You committed these crimes on 27 November 2014 at what had been the marital home in Albany, and which your wife occupied after you separated in 2013.

[3] The sentence on a charge of murder charge is life imprisonment unless that sentence would be manifestly unjust.3 Nothing in the circumstances of this case would make that sentence manifestly unjust.

[4] Accordingly, on the charge of murder, you will be sentenced to life imprisonment. I have already warned you of the consequences of the commission of another serious violent offence.4

[5] In addition, however, I must order you to serve a minimum period of imprisonment which I will refer to as the MPI. An MPI is not the sentence that you will serve. It simply marks the period of time that you must wait before seeking parole. The important issue today is the length of that MPI.

Documents

[6] I have an agreed summary of facts and I have also read a report by Dr Russell Wyness, a psychiatrist. I have had the benefit of comprehensive submissions from counsel and I also have the pre-sentence report.5

[7] Dr Wyness’s report followed meetings with you in December 2014. At the time Dr Wyness was satisfied that you had no recollection of the events of

1      Words in italics not read at sentencing, with the agreement of counsel.
2      Crimes Act 1961, ss 167(a) and 173.
3      Sentencing Act 2002, s 102.
4      Minute of 17 December 2015.
5      Report of Dr R Wyness dated 9 February 2015; Crown Submissions dated 20 November 2015; Amended Memorandum on Behalf of Defendant dated 15 December 2015; and Provision of Advice to Courts Report dated 13 January 2016.

27 November. Ms Dyhrberg does not wish to have that report updated because she does not believe that any real purpose would be served by doing so.

[8] I have also read and listened to the victim impact statements. And as Crown counsel said, those in Court today have not had the benefit of hearing the statement of Mrs Welman-Scott’s mother. Her life, and the lives of all of those you heard from, have been thrown into complete turmoil. They are shocked, traumatised and devastated and your actions have changed the course of their lives forever. And of course…

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 290
Case: [2016] NZHC 290
Decision Date: 26 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Brent Donovan Scott was sentenced for the premeditated murder of his estranged wife, Heidi Welman-Scott, and the attempted murder of his stepdaughter, Taryn Welman, and her partner, Matija Miletic. The court had to determine the minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) Scott should serve before being eligible for parole on the murder charge, as well as the sentences for the attempted murder charges. The court also considered the impact of Scott's premeditation, unlawful presence on the property, callousness during the attack, and the exceptional nature of the attempted murders on Taryn and Matija.

The court ruled that Scott's actions demonstrated significant premeditation, as he had meticulously planned the attack over a six-week period, including making arrangements to leave the country and purchasing knives specifically for the attack. The court emphasized that Scott's unlawful presence on the property, in light of existing court orders, further aggravated the offence. Additionally, the callous nature of the attack, including stabbing Taryn and Matija to prevent them from rescuing Heidi, and Scott's collected demeanor after the attack, contributed to the exceptional nature of the crime. The court determined that an MPI of at least 17 years was appropriate, given the premeditated and callous nature of the murder, and the exceptional circumstances of the attempted murders. The court also considered the attempted murder charges, determining a starting point of at least 10 years for each charge, before applying a two-year reduction for Scott's guilty plea.

In conclusion, the court sentenced Scott to life imprisonment for the murder charge, with an MPI of 17 years. For each attempted murder charge, Scott was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment, to be served concurrently with the murder sentence and MPI. This decision ensures that Scott is held accountable for his actions, denounces his conduct, deters him and others from committing similar offences, and protects the community from him.

Orders