R v Thompson - [2019] NZHC 72

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2018-043-189

[2019] NZHC 72

THE QUEEN

v

COLIN JAMES THOMPSON

Hearing: 5 February 2019

Counsel:

C E Clarke for Crown

P M Keegan and J M Woodcock for defendant

Sentence:

5 February 2019

SENTENCING NOTES OF DOBSON J

[1] Mr Thompson, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of Maurice Riddle on his farm at Normanby one year ago tomorrow. For approximately 20 years, you rented a cottage on Mr Riddle’s farm and occupied it, together with an area of land adjoining the cottage. You were extremely bitter towards Mr Riddle as your landlord and you resented his pressure to have you pay the rent on the cottage. You also did not comply with requests to keep your part of his property in the tidy state Mr Riddle expected.

[2] It seems that the exchanges between you on the day Mr Riddle died started with a telephone call from him to you at about 5.45 pm in the evening, when he raised with you the matter of unpaid rent. Banking records show that about half an hour later you withdrew $80 from your bank at Hawera, and a further half hour later, sometime before 7.00 pm, you called Mr Riddle and invited him to come over to the house to

R v THOMPSON [2019] NZHC 72 [5 February 2019]

collect his rent. A short time later, Mr Riddle came to the house and you handed over an amount of money. As he began walking away from the house, you went inside, retrieved a loaded 12-gauge shotgun and challenged Mr Riddle whilst armed with it. It appears there was a further exchange and with the two of you standing only metres apart, with Mr Riddle facing you, you fired a single cartridge from the shotgun which caused wounds to Mr Riddle’s lower abdomen and to his hands. He immediately fell to the ground, critically injured.

[3] You retreated back into the house but associates with whom you had been in contact about the prospect of a confrontation with Mr Riddle arrived shortly after that and made attempts to help him. You called out to them that Mr Riddle had got what he deserved and that they should let him die. You then walked up to where Mr Riddle was lying, kicked him hard in the hip area, and swore at him, saying that he had got what he deserved. You then made further comments to those at the scene to discourage them from offering him any assistance.

[4] Mr Riddle died at the scene. He was 78 years old, would be unlikely to have effectively defended himself from any form of attack and was certainly completely helpless when confronted by you with a loaded shotgun.

[5] You do not contest the summary of facts as prepared by the Police from which I have drawn this outline. It does record quite a history of…

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 Thompson

Details

AGLC: R v Thompson [2019] NZHC 72
Case: [2019] NZHC 72
Decision Date: 5 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Colin James Thompson pleaded guilty to the murder of Maurice Riddle. The parties appeared before the High Court of New Zealand in New Plymouth. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Thompson's crime. The legal issues revolved around the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) for the offence, considering both the nature of the crime and the mitigating circumstances of the offender.

The court considered the nature of the crime and the characteristics of the murder. It found that the murder involved a long-standing animosity between Thompson and Riddle and was not spontaneous. However, the court did not find that the murder involved calculated or lengthy planning. It did find that the murder was committed with a high level of callousness. The callousness was greater than that in a previous case, as Riddle was retreating from the scene and Thompson further inflicted pain and attempted to obstruct assistance to Riddle. The court concluded that the murder qualified for an MPI of 17 years or more.

The court then assessed the mitigating circumstances of Thompson. It found that Thompson had a mild to moderate depressive illness, was 69 years old, and entered a guilty plea at a reasonably early opportunity. The court found that these factors warranted a discount of 15% from the starting point of 17 years, followed by an additional discount of 15 months for the guilty plea. The court concluded that an MPI of 13 years and two months was appropriate.

The court sentenced Thompson to life imprisonment with an MPI of 13 years and two months. It found that imposing an MPI of 17 years would be manifestly unjust given the mitigating circumstances.

Orders