R v Tully - [2016] NZHC 1133

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2014-009-008232 [2016] NZHC 1133

THE QUEEN

v

RUSSELL JOHN TULLY

Hearing: 27 May 2016

Appearances:

Mr A McRae for the Crown
Defendant appears in Person
Mr P Shamy and Mr J Rapley as Counsel to Assist

Date:

27 May 2016

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MANDER J

[1] Mr Tully you are for sentence this morning for the murders of Peggy Noble and Ms Susan Cleveland. Your are also for sentence for your attempt to take the life of Ms Kim Adams. There are two firearms charges relating to your unlawful possession of shotguns.

The facts

[2] On the morning of 1 September 2014 you entered the offices of Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ) in Ashburton. Your face was disguised by a balaclava and you were armed with a pump action shotgun.

[3] You moved deliberately and swiftly to the side of the reception counter in the public area. There you discharged the shotgun at point blank range at Mrs Noble
who sat behind the desk in her normal daily position, attending to customers.

R v TULLY [2016] NZHC 1133 [27 May 2016]

[4] Ignoring members of the public in the reception area you made your way into the body of the open plan office. You discharged the weapon at Miss Adams who you saw across the room near an opposite wall. The lethal solid lead projectile barely missed her. Fortunately, Ms Adams was able to escape out a nearby door. Proceeding further into the office you shot another WINZ employee, Mrs Lindy Curtis who was attempting to hide under her desk. You ignored the young man whom she had been dealing with who was also under the desk.

[5] You proceeded to the rear area of the office and approached Ms Cleveland who was effectively trapped beside her desk in the far corner. Ms Cleveland pleaded for her life. You discharged the shotgun at her from short range. The pathologist’s evidence was that she was not mortally wounded. The CCTV footage shows you moving away from the area of Ms Cleveland’s desk after this first shot. However, you then returned, firing the shotgun twice to despatch your victim.

[6] You rapidly but calmly exited the office. Notwithstanding being bravely confronted outside by Mr Cooze who had witnessed your shooting of Mrs Noble, and the efforts of members of the public to follow you in their vehicles, you escaped as you had planned, on your bike to the Ashburton River bank.

[7] Later that evening you were found by police in the countryside hiding in a large hedge. You had disposed of the murder weapon but were in possession of another shotgun in a disassembled but operational state and many rounds of ammunition. The clothing and equipment found with you made it apparent you were determined to escape and to avoid apprehension.

[8] There was nothing random in your actions that morning. You had developed a sense of grievance over the way…

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 Tully

Details

AGLC: R v Tully [2016] NZHC 1133
Case: [2016] NZHC 1133
Decision Date: 27 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Russell John Tully was convicted of the murders of Peggy Noble and Susan Cleveland, the attempted murder of Kim Adams, and two charges relating to unlawful possession of shotguns. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for these serious crimes, focusing on the purposes of sentencing, including community protection, accountability, punishment, and denunciation. The court considered the brutal and premeditated nature of the crimes, the lack of remorse shown by the defendant, and the high risk he posed to the community. The court also evaluated the defendant's personal circumstances, including his history of substance abuse and personality traits, but found no mitigating factors that would reduce his culpability. Taking into account the severity of the crimes and the need for deterrence and community protection, the court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum term of 27 years, concurrent sentences for the other charges, and a warning under the three strikes legislation.

The court's sentencing remarks highlighted the cold-blooded and targeted nature of the crimes, the vulnerability of the victims, and the significant impact on the community. The court found that the defendant's actions were driven by a deep-seated sense of entitlement and a disregard for the sanctity of human life. The sentence imposed aimed to protect the community, hold the defendant accountable, and denounce the offending. The court's decision aligned with past authorities and ensured consistency in sentencing for similar grave crimes.

Orders