[2] When you pleaded guilty, you accepted that on 1 March 2016 you went into Mr Branch’s house during the night and killed Mr Branch with a hammer which you brought to the house with you. You also accepted that you struck Mr Branch many times with the hammer, mostly while Mr Branch was helpless on the floor. But what you told the Police about why you were at the house and what led to the attack was not accepted by the Crown. That disagreement led to a disputed facts hearing which I presided over. I will summarise the relevant facts as I found them to be.

[3] In late 2015, you, Mr Branch and others were living as flatmates at 36 Hall

Street in Rotorua. The house belonged to Mr Branch’s mother. On 21 February

2016, Mrs Branch evicted you and the other flatmates. She was upset with the way her house was being treated. There were holes in the interior walls, for example, some of which you caused. It seems you were prone to fits of anger and you would strike surfaces such as walls.

[4] You went to live at 15 Whittaker Street which is about 1.6 km from 36 Hall Street. Mr Branch remained living at 36 Hall Street by himself. You and Mr Branch were not on good terms at the time of eviction. There had been conflict between you, including one incident where Mr Branch pushed you while in the passage of the house. On the night following the evictions, you and one of the other evictees returned to the house and stole two cannabis plants belonging to Mr Branch. Mr Branch was angry and you were told that he had threatened to kill you.

[5] Then, on the evening of 1 March 2016, you were in the garage at

15 Whittaker Street with some of the other evictees. You noticed a red hoodie which you associated with Mr Branch and which was in the possession of one of the others. The sight of that hoodie made you angry at Mr Branch. One cause of your anger, perhaps the principal cause of your anger, was your belief that Mr Branch was

spreading rumours about you. You asked the others whether you could do something to Mr Branch. You were told it was not worth it. You seemed to calm down.

[6] But at around 10:30 pm that night, you said you were going for a walk. You

said you were going to…

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 Smith

Details

AGLC: R v Smith [2016] NZHC 2581
Case: [2016] NZHC 2581
Decision Date: 28 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Wyjuana Smith was sentenced for the murder of Todd Branch. Smith pleaded guilty to the charge of murder, accepting that he had unlawfully entered Branch's house and killed him with a hammer. The court held a disputed facts hearing to determine the relevant facts of the case. The court found that Smith had intended to attack Branch with the hammer and that he had struck Branch multiple times while he was helpless on the ground. The court considered the personal circumstances of Smith, including his difficult upbringing, psychological difficulties, and criminal history, as well as the victim impact statements made by Branch's family. The court concluded that Smith's offending was aggravated by factors such as the element of premeditation, the use of a weapon, and the high level of brutality involved. However, the court also found that Smith's youth, his guilty plea, and his psychological difficulties were mitigating factors. The court determined that a minimum period of 17 years would be manifestly unjust and sentenced Smith to life imprisonment with a minimum period of 13 years before the Parole Board could consider him for parole.

The court's reasoning was based on a careful consideration of the relevant legal principles and authorities. The court noted that the only sentence it could impose for murder was life imprisonment and that the minimum period of imprisonment it could impose was at least 10 years. The court found that Smith's offending involved unlawful entry into a dwelling place and was committed with a high level of brutality, which meant that the minimum period of imprisonment should be at least 17 years unless it would be manifestly unjust. The court considered the factors that made Smith's offending more or less serious and concluded that a minimum period of 17 years would be justified in the absence of mitigating factors. However, the court found that Smith's youth, his guilty plea, and his psychological difficulties were mitigating factors that reduced his culpability. The court concluded that a minimum period of 17 years would be manifestly unjust and sentenced Smith to life imprisonment with a minimum period of 13 years before the Parole Board could consider him for parole. The court emphasised that Smith's future release from prison would depend on the effort he put into engaging with the programmes offered to him in prison and dealing with the effects of his past.

Orders