Murderer’s appeal rejected

A CHRISTCHURCH murderer who argued the killing he committed did not feature extreme callousness or brutality has been firmly knocked back.

At a Court of Appeal hearing in Dunedin this month, Peter John Carroll’s lawyer, Anselm Williams, argued the man should have been sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum of 13 years, rather than 17.

The 54yearold appellant was found guilty of the murder of 36yearold Marcus Luke Tucker following a jury trial before the High Court at Christchurch in October.

He beat the victim to death with a steering wheel lock, burned the body and dumped it on the side of the road.

At trial the Crown suggested there were two possible motives for the attack.

Either Carroll was exacting revenge because he mistakenly believed the victim — known as ‘‘Ruckus’’ — had robbed his friend Mr Dawson; or that he believed Mr Tucker was involved in circulating counterfeit money.

The Sentencing Act dictates that murders committed with a ‘‘high level of brutality, cruelty, depravity, or callousness’’ should result in offenders being imprisoned for a minimum of 17 years before the possibility of parole.

The enactment of the legislation was a response to widespread public concern about the level of sentencing in murder cases, Justice Christine French said in the Court of Appeal judgement released yesterday.

‘‘Its purpose was to identify the worst type of murders.’’

While Mr Williams suggested Carroll’s murder did not meet the criteria, the court disagreed.

‘‘Firstly, before the murder there was a significant degree of premeditation as well as a vigilante dimension,’’ Justice French said.

‘‘Secondly, the act of killing Mr Tucker itself was undertaken in a brutal and unpitying way. The attack lasted for 30 minutes and involved a determined attack to the head. It was unprovoked and one sided. As the judge said, there was a chilling description of Mr Tucker crying out, begging for his life, with Mr Carroll’s response being to tell him to stop resisting. Mr Carroll remained cool and calm throughout.

‘‘Then, thirdly, there were the indignities visited on Mr Tucker’s body after his death. These included it being presented in the boot as a prize or present to Mr Dawson, setting the body on fire and then dumping it on the roadside. The judge also noted that Mr Carroll was grinning as he cleaned up Mr Tucker’s blood.’’

Carroll’s appeal was dismissed.

‘‘He was calculated, cool and devoid of feeling at all three phases,’’ the court ruled.