[1] Mr Rawden Yates, you were found guilty of murder after a three-week jury trial. Your victim, Mr Kimble Moore, was an acquaintance and member of the same gang, the Tribesmen. More importantly though, Mr Moore was also a father, step- father, sibling, son, partner and uncle.

[2] It is common ground I must impose a sentence of life imprisonment. Life imprisonment requires a minimum period of 10 years. The only issue is whether this should be increased. That said, most murderers are not released as soon as they are eligible for parole. I mention this because it is often overlooked. Now the facts of your case.

Facts

[3] Mr Moore and his partner went to your home in the early hours of 17 March

2016. You were on the run from Police at the time. More about that later. You arrived home a little after Mr Moore and his partner. Methamphetamine was consumed. And later, food. You encouraged Mr Moore to leave with you—alone. His partner did not want him to go with you. Her instincts were right. After leaving your home, you shot Mr Moore three times, killing him.

[4] Detail of the critical sequence remains unclear, because no one saw what you did, and because you hid Mr Moore’s body. However, the sequence consistent with the evidence, the jury’s verdict, and that which I find occurred is this:1

(a) At approximately quarter to seven the same morning, two witnesses encountered your distinctive car on the roadside. It had broken down. You asked for a jump-start. In the middle of all this, Mr Moore fell out of the car after opening the passenger’s door. You put him back in very roughly, with what was described as a punch, or “boof”.

(b)The witnesses thought Mr Moore was “really drunk”, “pretty stuffed”, or both. In fact, Mr Moore was seriously injured because you had shot him once to the abdomen.

(c) After the witnesses left, you killed Mr Moore by shooting him twice.

You did so from behind. Both bullets entered Mr Moore’s back, and passed through his body on a downward trajectory.

(d)You used a different gun to inflict these shoots from that you used to cause the wound to his abdomen.

(e) Whether you killed Mr Moore at the roadside, a short distance away, inside your car or outside, is unclear. However, your lethal shots to
Mr Moore’s back were fired “a very short time” after you had shot him to the abdomen, as there was no blood in that wound but was in the two…

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 Yates

Details

AGLC: R v Yates [2018] NZHC 2600
Case: [2018] NZHC 2600
Decision Date: 5 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Yates involved the sentencing of Rawden James Yates, who was found guilty of murder by a jury. Yates murdered his victim, Kimble Moore, by shooting him three times, including twice to the back. The court had to determine the appropriate minimum term of imprisonment for Yates, given the aggravating factors of the crime. The legal issues included whether the murder was "especially bad" and if Yates' actions exhibited high levels of brutality or callousness. The court found that while the murder exhibited some elements of an execution-style killing, it did not meet the threshold for "especially bad" as defined by the law. However, the court did find that the murder was callous and that Yates had a propensity for violence, a history of using guns to hurt others, and had concealed and destroyed evidence post-offence. The court considered these factors in determining the minimum term of imprisonment. Ultimately, the court sentenced Yates to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 15 and a half years before he would be eligible for parole. This sentence reflected the gravity of the crime, the callousness of Yates' actions, and his history of violence and disregard for the law.

Orders