R v Whiting-Roff - [2018] NZHC 3239

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2018-425-000010

[2018] NZHC 3239

THE QUEEN

v

BRAYDEN MARK WHITING-ROFF CHRISTOPHER JAMES BROWN LAURA ELIZABETH JOY SCHEEPERS

Hearing: 10 December 2018

Appearances:

R W Donnelly for Crown

P J Shamy and K H Cook for Defendant Mr Whiting-Roff F E Guy Kidd and L C Preston for Defendant Mr Brown

P B Redpath and K M Barker for Defendant Ms Scheepers

Judgment:

10 December 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF DUNNINGHAM J

Introduction

[1] Brayden Whiting-Roff, Christopher Brown, Laura Scheepers you are all here for sentence today in relation to the death of Jack McAllister.

[2] Mr Whiting-Roff you pleaded guilty to murder before the trial. Mr Brown you were found guilty of murder as a party by the jury at trial, and Ms Scheepers you were found guilty of manslaughter by the jury at trial.

R v WHITING-ROFF AND ORS [2018] NZHC 3239 [10 December 2018]

[3]Mr Whiting-Roff you are also here for sentence on another assault.1

Brayden Whiting-Roff

[4]I will deal first with the charge against you Mr Whiting-Roff.

[5] As you know, the charge of murder arose out of the events which occurred on 7 June 2017. You knew the victim, Jack McAllister, or Jade Fearn as his birth family knew him, as did all the other defendants who were charged in this matter.

[6] Over the preceding months there had been ongoing issues between Mr McAllister and some of the defendants, including you. Indeed, there was an incident which occurred exactly a month earlier, where you presented a knife to Jack McAllister and were convicted in relation to that. These issues came to a head on 7 June last year. You had heard that Mr McAllister had interfered with a child relative of Mr Brown and had engaged in other sexually inappropriate behaviour, and you and various other defendants expressed strong views about that on social media and in discussions which took place in the later part of that day. That evening, your co-defendant Chris Brown put a post on Facebook, saying that he wanted to find Mr McAllister. Negative comments followed that posting about Jack McAllister and you added “Jack’s a gonna” [sic – goner]. There was also evidence at trial that you were actively driving around, looking for Mr McAllister, that day.

[7] At approximately 8.00 pm, Ms Scheepers, Mr Brown and Ms Dickey, three of your co-defendants, met at Subway in Wachner Place. There they discussed Mr McAllister and their intention to have him assaulted and plans began to firm up to achieve this. While you were not at that meeting, you and the other defendants, with the exception of Ms Scheepers, met at around 10.00 pm, at 114 Ettrick Street, where Mr Brown and some of the other defendants lived. It was there that the plan to lure Mr McAllister to a location where he could be assaulted, firmed up.

[8] When you and the others were…

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 Whiting-Roff

Details

AGLC: R v Whiting-Roff [2018] NZHC 3239
Case: [2018] NZHC 3239
Decision Date: 10 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerns the sentencing of three defendants, Brayden Mark Whiting-Roff, Christopher James Brown, and Laura Elizabeth Joy Scheepers, following their convictions for their involvement in the death of Jack McAllister. The Crown had argued for life sentences with minimum periods of imprisonment of 15 years and 6 months, 13 years and 6 months, and 4 years and 6 months respectively, while the defence submitted that such sentences would be manifestly unjust for all three defendants. The Court disagreed with the defence, finding that while there were mitigating factors, they did not warrant a finite sentence. The Court found that the defendants' culpability was serious enough to warrant a sentence of life imprisonment for the first two defendants, while the third defendant was sentenced to a period of home detention.

Orders