R v Webb - [2013] NZHC 746

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI-2011-031-1821 [2013] NZHC 746

THE QUEEN

v

KELVIN MARK WEBB

Hearing: 12 April 2013

Counsel: A Read for the Crown
F Steedman for the Accused

Sentence: 12 April 2013

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MALLON J

Introduction

[1] Mr Webb, you appear for sentencing today having been tried before a jury and convicted of four counts of arson.[1] You were acquitted of one count of arson.

[1] Crimes Act 1961, s 267(1)(b) and (c).

[2] You maintain your innocence I understand, but you are to be sentenced on the basis of the jury’s verdicts and the convictions I entered on those - in accordance with - those verdicts. I also know from the letters submitted to me by your family that they do not accept the jury’s verdicts. Given that view I understand it will be difficult for them to listen to this sentence. However Mr Webb has been convicted
following a trial and the sentencing must proceed on that basis.

R v WEBB HC PMN CRI-2011-031-1821 [12 April 2013]

Circumstances of offending

[3] The charges against you arose from the deliberate lighting of five fires at the Foxton Racing Club racecourse during November and December 2011. During that period you were the caretaker of the racecourse. You had arrived in Foxton a couple of months earlier, and after a short time working at the golf course, you had taken on the position of caretaker of the racecourse. This was part of your ACC rehabilitation plan following a serious accident in respect of which you suffered significant injuries. The arrangement was that you were to look after the racecourse grounds in return for free accommodation, telephone and power at the caretaker’s house. As the caretaker you were the only person who lived permanently on the racecourse grounds. The caretaker’s house had a view over much of the racecourse grounds, and from the house you could see the patrols of the security officers and other comings and goings.

[4] The first of the five fires was of the racecourse grandstand. It occurred on

18 November 2011. The police theory of this fire was that it was a break-in, possibly by someone looking for alcohol. You were acquitted of the charge that related to this fire. You were convicted of the other four fires, which caused significant damage to three stable blocks and a wood shed.

[5] The second fire occurred on Saturday 19 November. Some time before

10:47 pm you left your home and went to one of the two stable blocks that are directly across from your home behind a hedge at the State Highway 1 entrance to the racecourse. The stable block contained 24 stables but on that night the horses were all in the paddocks. You entered an unlocked one at the end of the stables. They contained hay and other material that was relatively easy to alight. You set fire to the hay or other material and returned to…

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 Webb

Details

AGLC: R v Webb [2013] NZHC 746
Case: [2013] NZHC 746
Decision Date: 12 April 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Webb before the High Court of New Zealand concerns the sentencing of Kelvin Mark Webb, who was convicted of four counts of arson at the Foxton Racing Club racecourse. Webb was acquitted of one count of arson. The crimes were committed while Webb was the caretaker of the racecourse, a position he held as part of his rehabilitation following a serious accident. The court considered the significant financial and emotional harm caused by the arson, Webb’s abuse of his position of trust, and the premeditated nature of the offenses. Despite Webb's offer to pay reparation, the court found it unrealistic due to his limited financial means. The court ultimately determined a starting point of seven years' imprisonment, considering the comparable cases and the circumstances of the offense. After accounting for the restrictive conditions of Webb's bail, the court sentenced him to six years and eight months’ imprisonment for the lead offence, with concurrent sentences for the other counts. The court declined to impose a non-parole period and did not order reparation, considering Webb’s inability to pay.

Orders