[1] Darcy Strickland was 29 years old. He is described as having been kind, generous, loving and respectful. He was a talented athlete and artist. He was also someone who made a significant contribution to the community of Flaxmere. He had returned to teach at the local school and he was a role model and mentor for local rangatahi.
[2] V is 24 years old, she lives in Flaxmere. She was in employment and was completing a trade qualification. On the night of 13 October she was walking home with Mr Strickland and two other friends after attending a birthday party.
R v TODD [2024] NZHC 897 [22 April 2024]
[3] Alizaye Todd, I have today to sentence you for murdering1 Darcy Strickland and for injuring V with intent to cause her grievous bodily harm.2 The purpose of today’s hearing is to impose a sentence on you and also to explain the reasons why I have determined what your sentence should be.
[4] I start, as I must, by setting out the facts of the offending. You have entered pleas of guilty to the two charges. I must accept all the facts, either expressed or implied, that are essential to those pleas of guilty. At 11.45 pm on 13 October 2022, you and your co-offender Keontay Chadwick approached Mr Strickland and V as they were walking along Flaxmere Avenue. Earlier that night there been a verbal altercation between Mr Chadwick and V.
[5] You began to assault Mr Strickland causing him to fall to the ground. As he lay on the ground you stomped on him multiple times targeting his head and neck. Mr Chadwick joined in the attack. A witness saw the two of you punching and kicking Mr Strickland as he lay on the ground. You were described as appearing to enjoy what you were doing and laughing. You were angry, and making sure that each stomp was making contact with Mr Strickland and sweating profusely as you did so.
[6] V tried to intervene and pleaded with you and Mr Chadwick to stop. You then punched V repeatedly causing her to collapse to the ground. Once she was lying prone on the ground you then stomped on her face and head approximately five times rendering her unconscious.
[7] After having assaulted Mr Strickland, you then approached members of the public who had seen what happened and asked one of them for a knife so you could “finish it”.
[8] You then turned your attention to one of the bystanders who, fearing for his safety, fled on foot. You followed him for a short distance. Both you and Mr Chadwick then walked away and you were heard…
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 Todd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Todd [2024] NZHC 897
Case
[2024] NZHC 897
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Todd was heard in the High Court of New Zealand at Napier, where Alizaye Kirika Whindzar Todd was convicted of the murder of Darcy Strickland and the grievous bodily harm of V. The defendant, who was 19 at the time of the offence, pleaded guilty to both charges. The court heard that the defendant, along with an accomplice, had brutally assaulted Mr Strickland and V while they were walking home. The attack on Mr Strickland was particularly brutal, with the defendant stomping on his head and neck while he lay on the ground, and then turning his attention to V, stomping on her head and face until she was rendered unconscious. Mr Strickland died at the scene, and V suffered serious injuries.
The court had to determine an appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the brutality of the offending and the defendant's personal circumstances. The Crown argued for a life sentence with a minimum period of imprisonment of 11-12 years, while the defence argued for a minimum period of 10-11 years. The court considered the totality principle, which requires the total sentence to be proportionate to the gravity of the overall offending. It also considered the defendant's age at the time of the offence, his previous convictions for violent offending, and his personal circumstances, which included a history of family violence, incarceration, and substance abuse. The court ultimately determined that the defendant's minimum period of imprisonment should be 12 years, taking into account the seriousness of the offending, the defendant's personal aggravating and mitigating factors, and the need to hold him accountable for his actions.
The court sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment for the murder of Darcy Strickland and the grievous bodily harm of V, with a minimum period of imprisonment of 12 years before he is eligible for parole. The court acknowledged the devastating impact of the defendant's actions on the victims and their families, and emphasised the need to protect the community from the defendant. The court also recognised the defendant's personal circumstances and the potential for rehabilitation, but emphasised the need for the defendant to sever his ties with the Mongrel Mob if he is to break the cycle of violence and incarceration.