R v Wickliffe - [2015] NZHC 2392

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

CRI-2014-016-001256 [2015] NZHC 2392

THE QUEEN

v

RANGI MORRIS WICKLIFFE

Hearing: 1 October 2015

Appearances:

C R Walker for Crown
M J Phelps for Defendant

Sentence:

1 October 2015

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v WICKLIFFE [2015] NZHC 2392 [1 October 2015]

[1] Mr Wickliffe, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty on 4 June

2015 to a charge of conspiring to pervert the course of justice. The maximum penalty for that charge is seven years imprisonment.

The facts

[2] The events giving rise to the charge flow from the fact that in September

2014 you were in a remand unit in Rimutaka Prison. At that time, a man called Troy McHugh was placed in the cell beside yours. Between September and February you and Mr McHugh were also on a work detail that enabled you to have regular contact with each other.

[3] Mr McHugh was in custody on remand awaiting trial on a charge of murder. The charge was laid as a result of an incident that occurred in Gisborne in the early hours of 20 April 2014. The Crown case was that Mr McHugh had disguised himself and then gone into a house from which drugs were being sold with the intention of robbing it. He was carrying a firearm at the time. During the course of the robbery, he shot and killed one of the occupants of the address.

[4] The principal evidence against you at trial came from another inmate at Rimutaka Prison. He was Mr Nathan Taal, and Mr Taal told the jury about events that occurred during the months leading up to Christmas 2014. Mr Taal said that Mr McHugh had discussed his forthcoming trial with him, that is Mr Taal. Mr McHugh was concerned that he stood little chance of acquittal because there was an eye witness to the shooting.

[5] Mr Taal also recalls that during a meal time one day, Mr McHugh said to others in the room that he would pay $100,000 to any person who was prepared to place himself in Gisborne at the time of the shooting. To Mr Taal, this meant that Mr McHugh was seeking volunteers to accept responsibility for the shooting in return for receiving the sum of $100,000. Mr Taal said that other prisoners in the unit laughed at the suggestion, but that you appeared to take it seriously. He then became more concerned over subsequent weeks as you appeared to be receiving goods from Mr McHugh for which you did not have the means to pay. Mr Taal also saw documentary material in your cell that he believed comprised discovery material

provided to Mr McHugh’s counsel in relation to the murder charge. Mr Taal became convinced that you were going to go ahead with this plan to accept responsibility for the shooting that, in actual fact, had been carried out by Mr McHugh.

[6] That proved to be the case. Mr…

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 Wickliffe

Details

AGLC: R v Wickliffe [2015] NZHC 2392
Case: [2015] NZHC 2392
Decision Date: 1 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Wickliffe, the defendant, Rangi Morris Wickliffe, pleaded guilty to conspiring to pervert the course of justice while incarcerated in Rimutaka Prison. The offence occurred between September 2014 and February 2015, during which Wickliffe and another inmate, Troy McHugh, had regular contact. McHugh was awaiting trial for murder, a charge stemming from an incident in Gisborne on 20 April 2014, where he allegedly shot and killed someone during a drug-related robbery. Evidence from another inmate, Nathan Taal, revealed that McHugh had discussed his trial and expressed a willingness to pay $100,000 for someone to take the blame for the shooting. Wickliffe accepted this offer, leading him to falsely confess to the crime during an interview with a lawyer on 2 February 2015. This led to both Wickliffe and McHugh being charged with conspiring to pervert the course of justice.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for Wickliffe's involvement in the conspiracy. The maximum penalty for conspiring to pervert the course of justice is seven years imprisonment. The court considered several factors, including the starting point of three years imprisonment based on the precedent set by R v Ahomiro, the mitigating factors of Wickliffe's early guilty plea, and his willingness to testify truthfully if required. The court also considered the impact of Wickliffe's confession on McHugh's trial, which necessitated his segregation from other inmates.

The court determined that a starting point of three years imprisonment was appropriate, given the comparative culpability of Wickliffe's actions compared to McHugh's. After accounting for mitigating factors such as the early guilty plea, which warranted a 25% reduction, and the consequences of Wickliffe's actions on McHugh's trial, the court sentenced Wickliffe to two years imprisonment for conspiring to pervert the course of justice. The sentence reflects the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrent sentencing to uphold the integrity of the criminal justice system.

Orders