R v Wilkie-Morris - [2016] NZHC 259

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-096-4078 [2016] NZHC 259

THE QUEEN

v

DARRIN JOHN WILKIE-MORRIS

Hearing: 23 February 2016

Counsel:

P K Feltham for Crown
C W J Stevenson for Defendant

Sentence:

23 February 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF CLIFFORD J

[1] Mr Wilkie-Morris, you appear for sentencing having pleaded guilty to:

(a) Injuring Matthew Stevens with intent to cause grievous bodily harm;1

and

(b) Being an accessory after the fact to the murder of Matthew Stevens.2 [2] Those offences carry maximum penalties of ten and seven years respectively. [3] Those charges reflect what the Crown considers to be the proper description,

the characterisation of your responsibility, your culpability, that is your criminal

1 Crimes Act, s 189(1).
2 Crimes Act, s 176.

R v WILKIE-MORRIS [2016] NZHC 259 [23 February 2016]

responsibility, for the death of Matthew Stevens. You had initially been charged, along with Mr Stuart Wilton, with murder. Mr Wilton has pleaded guilty to that charge.

[4] I provided you with a sentencing indication on 16 December 2015. Your guilty plea was entered at that hearing. I now sentence you in the terms I indicated.

The offending

[5] Mr Stevens, the deceased, was known to you and your co-defendants

Mr Wilton and Ms Crook. You and Ms Crook are partners.

[6] The summary of facts which forms the basis of your guilty plea, and which I referred to at your sentencing indication but which I refer to here again today in public, records that on 27 November 2014 you and Ms Crook were at home with her children. Ms Crook lured Mr Stevens to that address, falsely telling him that you were out of town and that she was alone.

[7] You and Mr Wilton left the property. You arranged to arrive back shortly after Mr Stevens arrived. You and Mr Wilton went upstairs to Ms Crook’s bedroom where she and Mr Stevens were drinking and socialising.

[8] You and Mr Wilton confronted Mr Stevens. You struck Mr Stevens with a hammer on the head and the knee. Mr Wilton lunged at Mr Stevens with a knife and stabbed him three times, twice in the chest and once in the lower back. Mr Stevens died in the bedroom, as a result of those stab wounds. The charges you have pleaded guilty to reflect the Crown’s acceptance that you are not criminally responsible for Mr Stevens’ death.

[9] You, Mr Wilton and Ms Crook then took Mr Stevens’ body and placed it in the back of a van. You all cleaned up the areas of the house where Mr Stevens’ blood had been spilled.

[10] With you in the front passenger seat, Ms Crook drove the van to an isolated point north of the summit of Paekakariki Hill. Mr Wilton followed, driving

Mr Stevens’ car. The three of you rolled Mr Stevens’ body off the steep face of the

adjacent cliff. You pushed the car off after him.

[11] You all then returned to the…

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 Wilkie-Morris

Details

AGLC: R v Wilkie-Morris [2016] NZHC 259
Case: [2016] NZHC 259
Decision Date: 23 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Wilkie-Morris involved the defendant, Darrin John Wilkie-Morris, who was sentenced by Clifford J in the High Court of New Zealand. Wilkie-Morris pleaded guilty to two charges: injuring Matthew Stevens with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and being an accessory after the fact to the murder of Matthew Stevens. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for these offences, which carried maximum penalties of ten and seven years respectively.

The primary legal issues before the court were the determination of the appropriate starting point for the grievous bodily harm charge and the appropriate uplift for the accessory charge, as well as the impact of the defendant's previous convictions on the sentence. The court considered various aggravating factors, such as premeditation, the use of a weapon, an attack to the head, and the involvement of multiple attackers, to assess the criminality of the offending. The court also evaluated the extent of the defendant's involvement and assistance in the murder, including the transportation of the victim's body and the disposal of evidence, to determine the appropriate uplift for the accessory charge.

The court found that the grievous bodily harm charge warranted a starting point of four and a half years' imprisonment, while the accessory charge required an additional two years. The court also imposed an uplift of three months due to the defendant's previous violent offending. After applying a 25% discount for the defendant's guilty plea, the court sentenced Wilkie-Morris to a term of imprisonment of five years and one month on the grievous bodily harm charge, and a concurrent sentence of two years and six months on the accessory charge.

The court's sentencing approach was to treat the grievous bodily harm charge as the lead charge and adjust the sentence upwards to reflect the accessory charge. The court considered the Crown's and defence's submissions and found that the defendant's involvement in the grievous bodily harm charge was clearly premeditated and involved multiple attackers, with the use of a weapon and an attack to the head. The court also found that the defendant's involvement in the accessory charge was significant, as he travelled with the victim's body to dispose of it and helped dispose of evidence to avoid detection and frustrate any investigation.

Orders