Minnitt sentence was not outside customary range

Press, 28 August 1980, Page 3

Minnitt sentence was not outside customary range

PA Wellington The- sentence of four years jail imposed for. manslaughter on a Wellington medical practitioner, David Fairfax Minnitt, was within the range of sentences imposed in similar cases, the Solici-tor-General (Mr D. P. Neazor) said yesterday. Giving reasons why the Crown had decided not to appeal against the sentence, Mr Neazor. said the Crown’s case was presented by a senior and experienced prosecuting counsel. He also said if must be made clear that there was no provision in law for the Crown to appeal against a jury’s verdict. “The Solicitor-General is, however, authorised under the Crimes Act to seek leave of the Court of Appeal on behalf of the Crown against any sentence imposed in the High Court,” he said. Dr Minnitt was charged with the murder of his wife, but was found guilty of manslaughter. The sentence inspired some public protest and a petition containing 900 names was presented to the Minister of Justice (Mr McLay), asking him to take all possible steps to remedy any miscarriage of justice in the trial.

After meeting the petitioners, Mr McLay said he was considering the introduction of a criminal charge of “unlawful killing” to replace the existing charges of murder and manslaughter. In his statement yesterday, Mr Neazor. acknowledged that there had been "considerable public debate and pressure for an appeal by the Crown.” “Because of public comment I have obtained the prosecutor’s file, including the notes of evidence at the trial, a police file and the probation report which was available to the Judge before the sentence,”'he said. “Tn deciding upon the appropriate sentence a judge has regard to the evidence at the trial as to the. circumstances of .the crime, the demeanour of witnesses whom he has seen, material concerning the accused properly placed before him, the submission of counsel, the general level- of sentences imposed for the offence with which he is dealing, and the general principles of sentencing.

"On appeal, the Court' of Appeal considers the matter in the same way, but without the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses.

“The test whether an appear against sentence should be allowed is the same whether the prisoner or the Crown appeals. It is whether the sentence imposed was in the circumstances manifestly excessive, or inadequate, or was wrong in principle. “The Court of Appeal has, however, said that in practice it requires the considerations justifying an in- : crease to speak more powerfully than those which ordinarily might justify a reduction. “This case was one of the disturbingly numerous cases in which a domestic argument has been brought to an end by one party using an available weapon to kill the other. “The sentence of four years ■ imprisonment imposed was within the range of sentences imposed in similar cases. After considering the material to which I have referred and the principles which apply, I decided not to seek' leave to appeal against that sentence,” said Mr Neazor. “Comment has been made in various quarters about the way the Crown case was presented, about the Judge’s direction to the jury, and about the law relating to provocation.

“I have only two present comments about these matters. The first is that the Crown’s case was presented by a senior and experienced prosecuting counsel who has my confidence. The second is that at least some of the comments appear to be based on misapprehension of the law and practice of criminal trials,” Mr Neazor said. Commenting on the decision, the petitioners, Mrs Alice Fieldhouse and Mrs Judith Aitken, said that their primary interest was not in the sentence, but in the three matters placed before the Attorney-General in the petition — the conduct of the case, the procedural aspects of the trial, and the extremely wide interpretation allowed^ : of • the legal defence of provocation. “None of these matters is adequately dealt with in the Solicitor-General’s reply,” they said. “We are disappointed not to have the advantage of a review by the Court of Appeal on a matter of great public concern. “We intend to consult with other petitioners as widely as possible to seek further informed advice on how to proceed,” they said.