R v Sutcliffe - [2017] NZHC 2882

ORDER SUPPRESSING SECTIONS OF PARAGRAPHS [8], [9], [11] AND [25] OF THE SENTENCE BY ORDER OF THE COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2017-019-3479 [2017] NZHC 2882

THE QUEEN

v

TIFFANI JADE SUTCLIFFE

Hearing: 23 November 2017

Counsel:

R Douch for Crown
K Burroughs for Prisoner

Judgment:

23 November 2017

[REDACTED] SENTENCING NOTES OF WHATA J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Hamilton

R v SUTCLIFFE [2017] NZHC 2882 [23 November 2017]

[1] Ms Sutcliffe, you have pleaded guilty to a single charge of manslaughter.1 The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.2

[2] Before I go further I wish to acknowledge Mr Williamson’s family. You have suffered a terrible loss, for which you have my deepest sympathy. I also commend you for the strength that you have shown in speaking today.

[3] Regrettably, I must retell the facts of Mr Williamson’s death, which no doubt will cause you still more pain. But it is required for sentencing purposes.

Summary of facts

[4] Ms Sutcliffe, you pleaded guilty to the following summary of facts.

[5] On Tuesday, 30 May 2017, you were at your address, together with your then girlfriend. You were both drinking, enough to become intoxicated. Mr Williamson returned home from work and began to drink with you. You were later joined by another male, Anthony Clegg. He arranged to take possession of a firearm while there. Upon obtaining the firearm he placed it on the kitchen table.

[6] Subsequently, members of your group consumed GHB, a Class B controlled drug. At some stage, you, your girlfriend and Mr Clegg went into a bedroom with the intention of engaging in group sex. Mr Williamson came into the bedroom holding the firearm. He presented the firearm to you, at which point you took it from him and pointed it at him. You asked if it was loaded and almost immediately pulled the trigger. He immediately responded to you to say that, of course, it was loaded. At this stage, you were about two metres apart. The pellets struck Mr Williamson on the right side of his rib cage, beneath his armpit. He sustained unsurvivable injuries and died shortly after.

[7] You attempted to conceal the firearm by wrapping it in a towel and concealing it under a bush in the driveway, before moving Mr Williamson’s body from the
bedroom to the front step of the address and calling 111 for assistance. You were

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 171 and 160(2)(a).
2 Section 177.

arrested and formally interviewed on three occasions. You provided false information as to what occurred at the first interview and at the second interview. At the third interview, you stated Mr Williamson had pointed the firearm at your head, and you had taken it off him because it was your turn to play with the gun. You said you did not know it was loaded when you pointed it at him, and did not believe Mr Williamson thought…

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 Sutcliffe

Details

AGLC: R v Sutcliffe [2017] NZHC 2882
Case: [2017] NZHC 2882
Decision Date: 23 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand handed down its decision in R v Sutcliffe, a case involving a charge of manslaughter. The defendant, Tiffani Jade Sutcliffe, had pleaded guilty to a single charge of manslaughter after she discharged a firearm, resulting in the death of Mr Williamson. The maximum penalty for the offence was life imprisonment. The court acknowledged the suffering of the victim's family and commended them for their strength in providing victim impact statements. The court recounted the tragic facts of the case, which involved the defendant and her associates consuming alcohol and drugs before the defendant discharged a firearm, killing Mr Williamson.

The legal issues in the case centred on the principles of sentencing and the appropriate punishment for the defendant's actions. The court assessed the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case, ultimately finding that the defendant's actions were spontaneous and influenced by alcohol and drug use. The court considered sentences handed down for similar offending and determined a starting point of four years and six months' imprisonment. The court also applied a discount for the defendant's guilty plea, resulting in a final sentence of three years and one month's imprisonment. The court found that the requirements for a minimum sentence were not met in this case.

The court's reasoning in this case highlights the importance of considering the unique circumstances of each case when determining an appropriate sentence. The court balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors to arrive at a sentence that reflected the defendant's culpability and the need for rehabilitation. The final orders of the court included a sentence of three years and one month's imprisonment for the defendant, with the first strike warning already given.

Orders