The King v Leigh Matthew Frederick Beer - [2024] NZHC 2618

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2022-043-785

[2024] NZHC 2618

THE KING

v

LEIGH MATTHEW FREDERICK BEER

Counsel:
C E Clarke and H Bullock for Crown

J C Hannam and N Laird for Defendant

Sentencing:

11 September 2024

SENTENCING REMARKS OF GRAU J

Introduction

[1] Leigh Beer, aged 33, appears for sentencing today after a jury found him guilty of:

(a)the murder of his partner Emma Field;1

(b)arson;2 and

(c)injuring Adam Hearle with intent to injure him.3

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 158, 160(2)(a), 167(a) and (d), and 172(1) (maximum penalty of life imprisonment).
2      Crimes Act, s 267(1)(c) (maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment).
3      Crimes Act, s 189(2) (maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment).

R v BEER(SENTENCING) [2024] NZHC 2618 [11 September 2024]

[2] The jury by its verdict was satisfied Mr Beer intentionally lit the fire in the bedroom he shared with Emma while she was in that room, likely unconscious, and that when he did so, he was either intending to kill her or he knew that his actions in setting the fire would likely cause her death but he carried on regardless.

[3] Except in very unusual circumstances which do not apply here, the sentence for murder is life imprisonment. That means Mr Beer’s sentence will be one of life imprisonment.

Approach to sentencing

[4] When a person is sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, the Court must normally impose a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of not less than 10 years. But if the murder involved one or more of the features set out in s 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002, then the Court must impose an MPI of at least 17 years unless it would be manifestly unjust to do so.

[5] The only issue at this sentencing is the length of the MPI that I must impose. To explain further, the MPI is the number of years of the sentence that Mr Beer must serve before he can be considered for parole. What I want to make clear is that the MPI is not the time when Mr Beer will be released, and it is not the sentence. The sentence is life imprisonment and the Parole Board will not release Mr Beer on parole unless it is satisfied that he does not pose a future risk to the community. And even if he is eventually released on parole after he has served the minimum period of imprisonment that I set today, he will remain under supervision by the Department of Corrections and he can later, if necessary, be recalled to prison to continue to serve his life sentence.

[6] The maximum sentences for the other charges of arson and of injuring with intent to injure are 14 years’ imprisonment for arson, and five years’ imprisonment for injuring. The sentence for those charges cannot be added on top of the sentence of life imprisonment,4 but I may take those other…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read The King v Leigh Matthew Frederick Beer and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NZHC 2618
Decision Date: 11 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Leigh Beer, aged 33, was sentenced by Grau J in the High Court of New Zealand, New Plymouth Registry, after being found guilty of murdering his partner Emma Field, committing arson, and injuring Adam Hearle with intent to injure him. The court determined that Beer intentionally lit the fire in the bedroom where Emma was sleeping, likely unconscious, and either intended to kill her or knew his actions would likely cause her death but proceeded regardless. The mandatory sentence for murder is life imprisonment, and Beer’s sentence was life imprisonment with a 17-year minimum period of imprisonment, concurrent with sentences of five years for arson and one year for injuring Adam Hearle.

The court thoroughly examined the aggravating factors of the crime, including the callousness and depravity demonstrated by Beer’s indifference to Emma’s unconscious state and his failure to alert others to the fire. The judge also considered Beer’s abuse of Emma’s trust and vulnerability, as well as his previous history of violent offending. Victim impact statements highlighted the profound grief and suffering experienced by Emma’s family and the community, further underscoring the gravity of Beer’s actions. The court found that a 17-year minimum period of imprisonment was appropriate to hold Beer accountable, denounce his conduct, deter others, and protect the community, concluding that such a sentence was not manifestly unjust.

Orders