R v Taylor - [2016] NZHC 649

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-019-000845 [2016] NZHC 649

THE QUEEN

v

MICHAEL PAUL TAYLOR

Hearing: 12 April 2016

Appearances:

Ross Douch for the Crown
Simon Lance for Paul Mabey QC for the Defendant

Judgment:

12 April 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF MOORE J

R v TAYLOR [2016] NZHC 649 [12 April 2016]

Introduction

[1] Michael Paul Taylor, at the age of 50, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to three charges:

(a) manslaughter;1

(b) injuring with intent to injure;2 and

(c) assault with a weapon.3

[2] The victim, who I will say more about later in these remarks, was Michael Bull (“Michael”). You were originally charged with his murder and your trial was scheduled to start last week.

[3] However, just over two weeks before the trial was due to start the Crown accepted a plea of guilty to manslaughter which had been laid as an alternative to murder. Before me you entered pleas of guilty on all charges. This morning I granted leave to the Crown to withdraw the charge of murder.

Facts

[4] It is necessary for me to set out the factual basis which you accept supports the charges the Crown has brought. The facts paint a distressing picture of a highly abusive sequence of events which culminated in Michael dying of multiple blunt force injuries caused by you.

[5] Michael was the same age as you. He lived in the same house as you. And he was your first cousin.

[6] Included in the information before me are the very moving victim impact
statements filed by Michael’s family which were read this morning, in your presence. They reveal him as a quiet and unassertive man who suffered from a

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 71: maximum penalty – life imprisonment.
2      Section 189(2): maximum penalty – five years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 202C: maximum penalty – five years’ imprisonment.

variety of reasonably serious health issues. He was a large man and, it seems, had struggled with his weight for most of his adult life but had succeeded in recent times by reducing it from 148 kg to the 106 kg he weighed at the time of his death.

[7] His mild and subservient nature, which his family have so eloquently spoken of, is supported by aspects of the summary of facts with which you agree.

[8] The prelude to Michael’s death on 12 October 2014 is reflected in the facts which give rise to the two charges which I will describe in a minute. However, before I do, it is necessary to deal with some other aspects of context.

[9] You lived in a house in the small north Waikato village of Meremere. Your home, which you shared with Michael, was something of a draw card for some within that community. You had earned a reputation for producing home brewed alcohol. It was apparently a very potent mixture with high alcohol levels and what the summary of facts describes as “a…

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 Taylor

Details

AGLC: R v Taylor [2016] NZHC 649
Case: [2016] NZHC 649
Decision Date: 12 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Michael Paul Taylor appeared before the High Court of New Zealand for sentencing following his guilty plea to manslaughter, injuring with intent to injure, and assault with a weapon. The court heard the distressing details of a prolonged and violent attack on Michael Bull, the defendant's cousin, culminating in his death due to multiple blunt force injuries. The court considered the nature of the violence, the vulnerability of the victim, and the defendant's lack of remorse and insight into his actions. The defendant had a history of alcohol abuse and previous convictions for violence. The Crown argued for concurrent sentences with a starting point of nine to 10 years for manslaughter, with uplifts for the related charges. The defence argued for a lower starting point and a larger discount for the guilty plea and remorse. The court decided on a starting point of nine and a half years for manslaughter, with uplifts for the related charges, resulting in a global starting point of 10 years and three months. After applying discounts for the guilty plea and adjusting for the defendant's lack of insight and remorse, the court imposed a sentence of nine years and two months for manslaughter, with concurrent sentences of 18 months and five months for the other charges, and a minimum period of imprisonment of four years and seven months.

Orders