Legal Research
Cases
R v Sellick

R v Sellick

Case [2023] NZHC 743 4 April 2023

Manslaughter

Excessive Self-Defence

Unlawful Possession of a Firearm

Possession of Methamphetamine for Supply

Sentencing

Remorse

Personal Circumstances

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI 2021-004-007141

[2023] NZHC 743

THE KING

v

MANDAL FRANCIS SELLICK

Hearing: 4 April 2023

Appearances:

R M A McCoubrey for the Crown

D S Niven & C G Farquhar for Mr Sellick

Sentencing Notes:

4 April 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF TAHANA J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitors, Meredith Connell, Auckland Sentinel Chambers, Auckland

R v SELLICK (Sentencing Notes) [2023] NZHC 743 [4 April 2023]

Introduction

[1] Mandal Sellick you appear today for sentencing. You pleaded guilty to one charge of unlawful possession of a firearm1 and one charge of possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of supply.2 Following a jury trial you were found guilty of manslaughter for fatally shooting Mars Rakeem.3

[2] I have previously acknowledged the family of Mr Rakeem, and I acknowledge them again, and the suffering they have experienced.

[3] I will outline my assessment of the facts based on the evidence I heard at trial. This summary reflects that assessment, subject to consistency with the jury’s verdict. I will acknowledge the victim impact statement that has been read to the Court today from Mr Rakeem’s mother.

[4] I will then outline the sentencing regime and the approach I have taken to your sentence. That includes considering the starting point for the manslaughter charge, and then any appropriate uplifts. I will then make any necessary adjustments to the starting point to reflect your personal circumstances. Finally, I will set out the end sentence.

Offending

Manslaughter

[5] On the evening of 1 October 2021 and into the early hours of the next day, you were at the home you shared with your partner at the time, Sandy Younes. Ms Younes had invited people over to socialise, including friends and family. Mr Rakeem was part of that group.

[6] For most of the evening you were in the bedroom upstairs from the lounge where people were socialising.

1      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1)(b).
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f).
3      Crimes Act 1961, ss 160(2)(a) and 171.

[7] During the evening, Mr Rakeem and another left the house to buy drugs. When they returned some of the group snorted the drugs, and that included Ms Younes. The drugs were understood to be a mixture of MDMA and cocaine.

[8] After snorting the drugs, Ms Younes complained that it hurt her nose. She went upstairs and complained to you. You said she thought she had been drugged. I do not accept that Ms Younes was forced to take the drugs, however, I accept that she reacted to the drugs and witnesses that evening say that she complained that it was hurting her nose.

[9] Your evidence at trial was that after Ms Younes told you about the drugs, you got a loaded pistol which you kept in your bedside table. You tucked the pistol in your trousers with your t-shirt over it. You then went downstairs with the pistol concealed.

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 Sellick

Details

AGLC: R v Sellick [2023] NZHC 743
Case: [2023] NZHC 743
Decision Date: 4 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sellick was heard in the Auckland Registry of the High Court of New Zealand. Mandal Sellick was sentenced on charges of unlawful possession of a firearm, possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of supply, and manslaughter for fatally shooting Mars Rakeem. The court assessed the facts of the case, including the events leading to the shooting and the circumstances surrounding the possession of illegal substances. The court also considered the victim impact statements and the purposes and principles of sentencing. The legal issues involved determining the appropriate starting point for the manslaughter charge, considering aggravating and mitigating factors, and setting a final sentence that reflects the offender's personal circumstances. The court found that the manslaughter charge involved excessive self-defence, and the starting point was set at seven years and six months' imprisonment. The court also determined an uplift for the drug and firearm charges and applied discounts for the offender's guilty plea and personal circumstances. The final sentence was 11 years and 10 months' imprisonment for manslaughter and possession of methamphetamine for supply, and six months' imprisonment for unlawful possession of a firearm, to be served concurrently. The court also made orders for forfeiture and destruction of seized items.

Orders