The King v Leigh Matthew Frederick Beer
[2024] NZHC 2618
•11 September 2024
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 charges into account when I set the minimum period of imprisonment.
4 Sentencing Act 2002, s 23.
Victim impact statements
[7] Before I go on to discuss the sentence in more detail, I want to acknowledge the victims. First, the whānau of Emma Field—Mr and Mrs Field, and Emma’s aunty, Jodie Barker whose victim impact statements we have just heard. You have been very courageous to put your feelings into words, and Mrs Field and Ms Barker, to read them in this Court. It is very clear that Emma was a much-loved and loving family member; a bright young soul who lit up the lives of everyone around her. Your pain, your anger and your hurt has been heartbreaking to hear.
[8] Mr and Mrs Field, my impression from your evidence at trial was that you were excellent, loving and caring parents. And as I saw during the trial, you conducted yourselves with grace and with dignity despite that it must have been an excruciating process for you; in particular for you Mr Field, having to watch the playing of Mr Beer’s Police interview when you were there in the room supporting him and giving him comfort. Mr Field you have said in your victim impact statement that you feel like an idiot for the support you gave Mr Beer after Emma’s death, but that is not correct. Instead, it only shows what a good person you are, and Emma’s mother, both are. I was told that you were even comforting Mr Beer’s mother after the verdicts. That is truly extraordinary. It demonstrates your quality when this is also a tragedy for Mr Beer’s family. They are blameless in this, but they have lost a son, a brother, and a father from their day to day lives for a very long time, potentially forever.
[9] Mrs Field, you are correct that the end of this trial process does not mean that you can heal now. That is a process that will continue on, so too the pain. But I hope the end of this trial process will be of some small comfort to you.
[10] Mr Beer, the harm you have caused to Emma’s whānau is immense. Your actions have also caused great harm to your own whānau.
[11] I have also read and considered a victim impact statement from Liam Herlihy, who lived in the apartment above. He was significantly affected, and he also says he carries an emotional sadness from the loss of who he called “dear Emma”.
[12] Mr King and Ms Waters, the landlords of the property that Mr Beer destroyed by fire, were also significantly affected by the fire and its aftermath. They suffered much stress as well as a large financial cost. A reparation schedule has been submitted to the Court in respect of the costs that they have not been able to recover through insurance. But because of the life sentence that I have to impose on Mr Beer, including a lengthy time before which he will not be eligible for parole, there is no realistic possibility of the payment of reparation and I am not going to order it.
[13] Adam Hearle, who was the victim of the injuring charge, suffered stress having to give evidence at trial. He said he was only trying to help put out the fire but got punched instead. He also said that what happened to him pales into insignificance compared to what Mr Beer did to Emma and he has expressed his sympathy to Emma’s parents.
The offending
[14] The first thing I need to do is to outline the relevant facts about what happened on 27 May 2022 when Emma Field was killed. I base this summary on the essential elements of the charges which the jury must have found proved, and on the facts which, as the trial Judge, I am satisfied were proved.
[15] On Friday night on 27 May 2022, a fire that had been deliberately lit destroyed the apartment that Mr Beer shared with Emma Field. It was one of four apartments in a big old house that had been renovated, only a block away from this Court building, in Devon Street West.
[16] Emma died in that fire, which was started by a person holding an open flame to the bed and/or the bedding of the bed in the master bedroom. The person who lit this fire had to have held an open flame to the bed and/or the bedding until the fire was capable of sustaining its own combustion. Emma’s body was found under the windows of that master bedroom. Her body was next to, and slightly under, the overturned bed and mattress which had been set alight. She was alive when the fire started, and she died from its effects. The smoke found in her airways demonstrated that she had been alive, but thankfully, she would have been unconscious when the fire reached her. For the first one-and-a-half to two minutes of the fire taking hold, it
would have been possible for Emma to leave had she been conscious, or if someone had rescued her.
[17] That day had started well for Emma. Emma’s parents had taken her out for lunch earlier that day after looking for a car to buy for her. They dropped her back at her apartment in the early afternoon. Emma and Mr Beer were not working that day. They had smoked some cannabis with their upstairs neighbour Mr Herlihy earlier in the day. They had some drinks in the afternoon. Later on in the early evening, Emma and Mr Beer went out to pick up two friends and brought them back to their apartment. The four of them spent the evening socialising and drinking together, mainly in the kitchen area and just outside the kitchen door, the entry to their flat. They drank a considerable amount of alcohol, and the two couples shared an ecstasy tablet.
[18] The evidence was that Mr Beer began making disparaging comments about Emma in front of their friends while they were drinking in the kitchen, as well as flirting with the female friend. There was then talk of the group going into town. But eventually though Emma just went to bed. One of the friends went in to see her, Emma said she was wasted and wanted to go to sleep. The friend put a blanket over her on the bed and left her to sleep.
[19] Mr Beer then started saying odd things to the friends, including talking about his own funeral and committing suicide. He randomly punched the glass out of the panel in the front door to the flat and cut his hand. Another couple arrived and picked up the friends. That quartet left to go into town, and they left Mr Beer behind. CCTV footage showed the exact time they left, at 10:46 pm, and the CCTV footage showed Mr Beer being left on the footpath.
[20] It was the Crown case, that the jury accepted by its verdicts, that Mr Beer who was in an angry and disturbed state, turned back to the apartment, picked up his lighters which were kept in the kitchen, walked through to the bedroom where Emma was on the bed, flipped the heavy bed and mattress over with some effort, and then set fire to it using his two lighters to do so (one of those lighters being faulty and requiring the other lighter to be used to maintain the flame).
[21] That faulty butane lighter (which was normally kept in the kitchen drawer) was found after the fire, near the top of the stairs above the apartment which led to the upstairs unit where Mr Herlihy lived. It had Mr Beer’s blood on it. Another lighter was found on Mr Beer, also with blood on it, when he had been taken to hospital after the fire.
[22] The window under which Emma died in the fire had been broken, as had windows in the lounge, that fed the fire by allowing oxygen in.
[23] The expert evidence was that the window in the kitchen door had been broken before the fire started. The fire was lit between 10:50 and 10:53 pm, and it would have proceeded from the master bedroom, down the hallway, and towards the lounge and kitchen, in no more than five minutes. By 10:58 pm, the clock in the lounge of the small apartment had stopped working, as had the Wi-Fi, because of the heat of the fire.
[24] By around 11:00 pm, the fire was well alight and was visible from the street. Members of the public made 111 calls and emergency services started to arrive. By that stage, Mr Beer was outside with a hose, making ineffectual attempts to put water onto the fire through the window, and acting aggressively towards fire and Police staff and members of the public who had turned up to see what was happening and to try to assist. But before the alarm was raised by others, Mr Beer had done nothing to alert anyone. His blood was all over his car that was parked outside suggesting he had been standing there waiting while the fire took hold.
[25] Mr Herlihy, the upstairs neighbour, had heard noises including a big thud from Mr Beer and Emma’s apartment before he became aware of the fire, and he had also seen Mr Beer take the fire hose. It was Mr Herlihy who set the fire alarm off. Some of the passersby who had come, went to check on people in the other apartments. Mr Hearle was one of the members of the public who came. He attempted to take the hose from Mr Beer, and his evidence was that he told Mr Beer to go and look for more water. Mr Beer responded by punching Mr Hearle in the head.
[26] Eventually, Mr Beer was taken from the scene of the fire after being sedated. He was taken to hospital, treated for soot in his airways and smoke inhalation, and minor lacerations to his hand.
[27] The Police spoke to Mr Beer several times. First at the hospital, where he told them he was not home at the time of the fire but arrived home to find his door shut. After he was released from hospital, Police interviewed him with Emma’s father who was present supporting and comforting him. Mr Beer was, at that stage, living with the Fields who had taken him into their home. This time, he said he did not remember much after sharing the ecstasy tablet, and he spoke of someone telling him Emma was in the bedroom when he asked them. He said he had arrived at the flat and the front door, the door to the kitchen, was locked. He told Police he smashed the kitchen door open at that time. He also mentioned a shadow in front of him, stopping him getting to the door.
[28] At a second interview after Mr Beer had been arrested and charged with murder, he said he did not know where he had been, but he was not at or on the property. He said someone had been standing in front of the door saying to him, “She’s gone bro” and that the door was closed. He said at this interview that he entered the apartment and got into the lounge, but it was too hot, so he ran out and got the fire hose.
[29] What was apparent from cellphone evidence at the trial, however, was that Mr Beer was not away from the apartment at the time the fire was lit.
[30] The defence suggested at trial that a Crown witness, Mr Cook, who was staying at the Braemar Motel just over the back fence could have been the person who lit this fire. It was put to Mr Cook that he had seen people leaving the apartment, that he jumped over the back fence, went in to burgle the address, saw Emma on the bed, flipped the bed over, and set fire to it so she would not identify him. It was even put to Mr Cook that he had encountered Mr Beer at the door and had pushed the two lighters into Mr Beer’s hands. Mr Cook colourfully and dramatically denied that he was the person responsible.
[31] The suggestion was that Mr Cook, who had a very significant criminal past including previous convictions for burglary, arson, and violence, was the sort of person who could have done this. The jury’s verdict demonstrates their rejection of this theory. I am not at all surprised, having seen and heard Mr Cook give his evidence. I have no doubt that, despite his criminal past, at this trial he was an entirely honest witness. It is also apparent the jury was not persuaded by Mr Cook’s criminal history that he had lit this fire, when his history, although it contained some superficially similar charges, consisted of entirely different offending from mostly long ago. In contrast, Mr Beer was there, he was angry, he was intoxicated, and his account of the night to Police continued to change in a way that suggested attempts by him to address and explain away the evidence that pointed to him as the person who deliberately lit the fire that caused Emma’s death.
Minimum period of imprisonment
[32] As I have said, I am required by law to impose a minimum period of imprisonment of not less than 17 years’ imprisonment if the murder is especially bad, unless that would be manifestly unjust.5 The approach to this sentencing exercise involves three steps:6
(a)first, I have to consider the appropriate notional MPI;
(b)second, to consider whether any of the aggravating factors in s 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002 are engaged; and
(c)third, if one or more of those factors is engaged, but the notional MPI is less than 17 years, then to consider whether an MPI of 17 years would be manifestly unjust.
[33] The Crown says the minimum period should be no less than 19 years, and there are no mitigating factors or any personal factors that would make such an MPI manifestly unjust.
5 Sentencing Act, s 104.
6 Davis v R [2019] NZCA 40, [2019] 3 NZLR 43 at [25].
[34] Mr Beer’s lawyer does not argue otherwise, saying that level of MPI cannot be avoided and is appropriate.
[35] The Crown says Emma’s murder was especially bad because it was committed with a high-level of callousness and depravity, both in the commission of the murder itself, and in Mr Beer’s behaviour afterwards.
[36] The Crown emphasises that Emma was alive (although thankfully unconscious) at the time of the fire. However, Mr Beer showed total indifference to her, particularly as there were obviously minutes when there was the potential for Emma to regain consciousness, but she would have been hindered from escaping the bedroom and the fire because of the overturned bed.
[37] The Crown says Mr Beer watched and waited to ensure the fire took hold before he hid the butane lighter. He did not alert any occupants of any of the other three apartments to the danger he had placed them all in, and his efforts to thwart the attempts of others to assist in subduing the fire also showed his total indifference.
[38] The Crown points to his behaviour after he ensconced himself into the household of Emma’s parents, including getting Emma’s father to support him at his Police interview.
[39] The Crown also points to Emma’s vulnerability because of her state of unconsciousness, as well as the abuse of a position of trust in this case, given that she was Mr Beer’s partner.
Evaluation
The notional MPI
[40] I begin by looking at the appropriate notional minimum period of imprisonment, and to determine what that should be, I look at the things that make the offending more serious, whether there is anything that makes it less serious, Mr Beer’s personal circumstances, and similar cases.
[41]What makes the offending here more serious are the matters that follow:
(a)First, the abuse of the victim’s trust. Emma was in a relationship and living with Mr Beer; she was entitled to look to him for comfort, support, and protection. He betrayed her trust in the most significant way imaginable, by killing her. He then also abused the trust of her parents by his behaviour afterwards, accepting their care and comfort after the event, to the extent of Emma’s father supporting him at the Police interview which was played at the trial and must have been excruciating for Mr Field to have to sit through.
(b)Secondly, although Mr Beer does not have a history of threatening or harming Ms Field, he has previous convictions for violent offending, including against a previous partner and their child, the Police, and a neighbour. This offending similarly involved Mr Beer very suddenly becoming very aggressive and angry over minor issues after drinking alcohol—of damaging property by punching doors and windows and overturning furniture, and causing harm to those close to him. It also involved him being aggressive to people who were seeking to assist.
(c)Thirdly, the vulnerability of the victim. As I have already mentioned, the essentially unchallenged evidence of the fire expert, Mr Joseph, was that in the first minute-and-a-half or two minutes of the fire beginning, there would have been an opportunity for Emma to get out or for someone to get her out. But she was helpless. Mr Beer, you could have saved her. Instead you left her to die.
(d)Fourth, the harm done to the victims—to Emma, who was robbed of the opportunity to enjoy a full life with all it had to offer her; to her family who have suffered the devastating loss of a much-loved family member and the opportunity to share in her life. And the third set of victims is your family Mr Beer.
[42] I am unable to find any mitigating factors. You continue to assert your innocence. That is your right, but it means there is no acceptance of responsibility or remorse. Late yesterday, I was provided with a number of letters of support for you from an ex-neighbour, three ex-girlfriends, and another female friend. All express
their disbelief that you are capable of murder. They speak of good qualities they say you have. You are lucky to have such support which you will need in the years ahead. But they did not hear the evidence at trial, and none mentioned your past which includes violence against those close to you. I note from the PAC report that you completed programmes on previous sentences that were designed to reduce your risk of further offending including programmes to address family violence and alcohol and drugs. But you deny any problems with substances. All that I can take from these letters, and indeed from some of the evidence I heard at the trial, is that you do have good qualities. But at the same time, there is also a very dark side.
[43] I have had regard to a number of cases the Crown provided which involve murders caused by, or involving the use of, fire.7 They all have horrific facts and I do not intend to go through the details of them. The case that I consider the most comparable to yours is R v Mills. That had a notional MPI of 15 years but the Judge found that s 104 of the Sentencing Act was engaged, and imposed a MPI of 17 years.
[44] The cases I have read that have MPIs around the 19-year mark tended to involve higher levels of premeditation or planning, including committing murder for a financial reward. I do not consider that to be the case here. I very much doubt Mr Beer that you started the evening with the intention of killing your partner. Rather, something suddenly set you off, in what appears to be a similar manner to how you have behaved in the past, except this time it had such tragic consequences. Although I do not consider this murder was planned or premeditated to any significant degree, there was, however, an element of determination in what you did, given you had to get the lighters, then make a considerable effort to overturn a heavy bed, then take the time to get the fire to take hold. You then did nothing to alert anyone. It was other people who called emergency services, by which time it was too late for anyone to save Emma from the fire.
[45] I consider that a notional MPI in the region of 16–17 years’ imprisonment is appropriate.
7 Cases referred to include R v Kumar [2015] NZHC 954; Kumar v R [2016] NZCA 329, (2016) 28 CRNZ 32; R v Tinei [2023] NZHC 1869; and R v Mills HC Rotorua CRI-2008-063-002260, 6 August 2009 (Sentencing Remarks of Lang J).
The s 104 factors
[46] The next question is whether any of the circumstances in s 104 are engaged so that an MPI of at least 17 years is required. It follows from what I have said that I find there was a high level of callousness in the commission of the murder and in your subsequent behaviour. This engages s 104(e).
[47] I also consider that Ms Field was particularly vulnerable so that s 104(g) is also engaged. She had gone to bed intoxicated. She should have been safe to go to sleep in her own home. Emma was completely helpless and unable to escape the fire you deliberately lit.
Would 17 years’ imprisonment be manifestly unjust?
[48] The MPI must be the minimum term of imprisonment that I consider appropriate to hold you accountable, denounce your conduct, deter others, and protect the community.8 I take into account the aggravating factors I have referred to and also take into account the associated offending—the arson and the assault on Mr Hearle. As I have already said, the sentences for those charges cannot be added on top but I am required to take them into account.9 Here, there was very significant damage caused to the property you were renting by setting fire to it, with great stress and financial loss caused to the landlords, as well as an indifference to the safety of the other tenants in the other three apartments, and an assault on a person who came to help. You deliberately risked the lives of other people, and the destruction of property. Had I been sentencing on the arson and injuring charges separately, I consider a sentence of five years’ imprisonment and one years’ imprisonment would have been appropriate respectively.
[49] I have found that Emma’s vulnerability and the callousness in this case— demonstrated by the indifference to the unconscious Emma who you left to die in a
8 Sentencing Act, s 103(2).
9 See, for example, R v Natana [2024] NZHC 1274.
burning bedroom, and your behaviour afterwards—are sufficient to engage s 104 which requires an MPI of at least 17 years to be imposed. As I have explained, even without reference to s 104, I consider an MPI of near, or at, 17 years’ imprisonment would have been appropriate in any event.
[50] A 17-year minimum period of imprisonment is therefore required to hold you accountable for an especially bad murder, to denounce your offending, deter others, and to protect the community. It is not manifestly unjust to impose this sentence.
Sentence
[51]Please stand now Mr Beer.
[52]I sentence you as follows:
(a)for murdering Emma Field, I impose life imprisonment with a 17-year minimum period of imprisonment;
(b)for arson, I impose a concurrent sentence of five years’ imprisonment; and
(c)for injuring Adam Hearle with intent to injure him, I impose a concurrent sentence of one year imprisonment.
[53]Thank you, you can stand down now.
Grau J
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, New Plymouth