Who Killed Scott Guy? (36 page)

Federated Farmers’ Manawatu-Rangitikei president Andrew Hoggard told
The Dominion Post
it was a shock to discover Macdonald’s acts. ‘We genuinely thought crimes like this were committed by some low-life toerag who’d never worked a decent day in their life.’

Along with the revulsion at Macdonald’s actions was equally predictable outrage that the jury didn’t get to hear of these crimes at his trial. Social media was awash with claims that if they had, then Macdonald would have been found guilty, and this was just another example of New Zealand’s deeply flawed justice system.

Greg King had always known this would happen. And he always knew the worst public response would be triggered by the calf-killing incident. In November he’d predicted that even if Macdonald was acquitted, ‘the headline the next day will be, “Jury Didn’t Hear That He Killed Calves”. Frankly, I think the reaction from the public to hearing it demonstrates precisely why a jury shouldn’t have heard it. It’s almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. The jury shouldn’t have heard it because it can cloud their judgement, it can overwhelm them and when that happens, the technical precision of evidence becomes irrelevant.’

And King emphasised that not including these crimes during the murder trial wasn’t contentious—Ben Vanderkolk and the Crown accepted they should be inadmissible because their relevance was outweighed by their potentially prejudicial effect. If the calf killing had been part of the murder trial, King said he would have been tempted to leave the trial in Palmerston North rather than apply for it to be shifted to Wellington. ‘Because rural folk on a jury could have more understanding of killing calves this way, I think, more than a bunch of Wellington public service vegans sitting on a jury hearing about it. Bobby calves are killed all the time—just like roosters are killed every time they’re born in the hen house. Rural people are aware of rural realities more than people who just buy their meat plastic-wrapped in the supermarket.’

But no matter what context was offered about rural realities, there was no escaping the determined and vengeful nature of Macdonald’s crimes. And for many, the acts simply confirmed the image of Macdonald as a complete monster.

That image easily fed into the belief Macdonald really was Scott’s killer, despite what the jury and court had ruled.

On 14 September 2012 a woman approached this journalist outside Palmerston North’s courthouse, where Macdonald was about to be sentenced. ‘Are you from the media? Are you here for the Scott Guy case?’ she asked enthusiastically. She was a slight woman in her 50s who said her birthday was that weekend—the same day Scott and Kylee’s second son, Drover, would turn 2.

Like everyone in town, she had a theory on the case, how it had to be someone with local knowledge, how she’d been down Aorangi Road and looked at the scene, how she was sure it must have been Macdonald. ‘You know what I think? He must have had two pairs of boots. One bigger and one smaller. He must have worn thick socks with one when he was hunting, so they were bigger,’ she concluded with a knowing nod before scurrying off to catch her bus. And that was that. Case solved. Despite the fact that there was no evidence Macdonald ever owned two pairs of dive boots, despite the overwhelming evidence he never hunted in dive boots, despite the Crown never raising such a scenario, the woman had found a theory that suited her conviction that Macdonald was guilty.

As Liam Collins summed it up, ‘At the end of the day, it’s a case of, “He did other things, so he must have done this. We don’t have any evidence of this, but he must have done it. Who else? We can’t think of anyone else.” Without the other crimes there was no case.’

But it was the other six crimes for which Macdonald now faced sentencing.

Outside the courtroom a polite crush began with reporters, cameramen and fascinated public all positioning themselves to get a seat. Strangely, the smallest courtroom was used. When a burly security guard with mullet, stab-jacket and ominous leather pouches on his belt finally opened the door, many missed out on the final public appearance by Macdonald. ‘Please place Ewen Kerry Macdonald before the court,’ the registrar called and Macdonald, in striped shirt, pink tie and suit entered, flanked by two prison officers.

That morning, Greg King had been realistic about what Macdonald would get. ‘Four years would be good, five we might think of appealing, six we’d definitely appeal.’ King had travelled up from Wellington to appear with Peter Coles for Macdonald. Ben Vanderkolk was away so Paul Murray presented the Crown’s submissions.

He stressed that all the offending was highly premeditated, most was driven by vengeance, and in many cases trust was abused. ‘Each offence . . . derived from a sense of entitlement.’ The crimes against Scott and Kylee’s property were ‘intensely personal, done with the intention to unsettle’. There had been little remorse, and Macdonald had been able to carry on with his life until he was caught. Murray encouraged Justice France to treat the crimes separately and impose a cumulative sentence because there were four separate sets of victims.

This wasn’t the first time this approach had been urged. Just days before, Kylee Guy had sent a letter to the attorney-general, exhorting him to ensure Macdonald was heavily punished. ‘Ewen Macdonald is a very dangerous, vindictive man and an extreme danger to our society and people. He needs to pay for all of his individual and separate crimes and the hurt, pain and suffering he has caused, not only to myself, my husband and our children but to numerous other people within New Zealand . . . I am now alone and I must protect my children and for this I need a sentence that reflects appropriate justice. If the offender is granted a concurrent sentence, it will not reflect the suffering he has caused to my family, neighbours and the community and will mean that he is able to escape the true gravity of his actions.’

She said that when Macdonald was released, her only choice would be to move to Australia because of her fear of him. ‘Please look at this within your heart and help us,’ she concluded.

As part of her relationship with the Sensible Sentencing Trust, Kylee also wrote a letter with its spokesman Garth McVicar to a number of MPs, including the prime minister, courts and justice ministers, and leaders of other parties. This letter also railed against concurrent sentences being used for Macdonald, saying he was an evil man who committed all the crimes independently. Imposing a maximum penalty for only one charge and rolling the other sentences into this would be pathetic, they said, and send a message to criminals they got ‘free hits’ after their first crime, as well as telling most victims that they didn’t matter and weren’t entitled to justice.

It was an understandable but extraordinary appeal, assuming politicians might try to influence the outcome of a criminal case or pressure a judge. As a spokesman for Attorney-General Chris Finlayson said, it would be improper for the government to involve itself in court decisions, which were a matter for the judge.

Paul Murray said that taking into account all the crimes and the fact Macdonald was the instigator and lead offender, the judge should use a starting point of seven years’ jail. But Greg King compared this with the starting point for Callum Boe of four years when he was sentenced in Queenstown the previous year. King said Macdonald was genuinely remorseful and had taken profound steps at reconciliation. ‘He hated the person he had become.’ When reductions for an early guilty plea and remorse were considered, King argued that a sentence of three years was appropriate.

Justice France had a number of other representations to take into account, from victims, family members—and Macdonald himself. In a three-page letter to the judge neatly handwritten in blue biro on A4 refill, Macdonald offered to work for free on the Guy, Hocken, Sexton and Barber farms to in some way compensate for the loss he’d caused. ‘My challenge for myself and my children’s sake is to put all of this behind me and one day reearn some respect and be a great and productive worker and the best father I can be to my four beautiful children.’

His parents also wrote a long letter supporting him. ‘Marlene and I know he is remorseful. This shouldn’t be confused with feeling sorry for himself. He has never complained about his situation. He knows he has done the crime and must pay the time. He just wishes he hadn’t done any of these crimes because of the expense, anguish, violation and heartbreak he has caused to the victims and those closest to him. He has lost everything except his four children—his home, career, marriage, Guy family and reputation. Ewen knows only too well that he must now lead an exemplary life to try and rebuild those things in life.’

The Macdonalds also referred to people criticising them for continuing to support their son. ‘They don’t see our equally strong support for Anna and the grandkids, of course. There is no handle on our family tap—it is on and running all the time.’ Turning to his future, they said they looked forward to Ewen getting out of prison so he could ‘take up the challenge of citizenship’, and provided details of a job Ewen had been offered with a rural contractor. ‘His image has been in the media that often his face is more identifiable than most All Blacks, which is a fact he will have to bear whilst trying to get on with his life. Whether he has paid his debt to society for the crimes committed will be decided by you and this court. So we leave it to you.’

Arranged against these were victim impact statements from those affected, detailing the personal and financial damage Macdonald’s actions had caused. There was a probation report too, which said Macdonald spoke candidly about his offending ‘yet presented as unemotional throughout the interview’. It assessed him as being at medium risk of reoffending and medium risk of harm to the community.

When it came time for a decision, Justice France again detailed Macdonald’s crimes, referring to victim impact statements and describing his acts with a string of pejoratives: ‘Callous . . . brutal . . . nasty . . . cruel . . . senseless . . . malicious.’ He noted Macdonald had written of his remorse, but said he didn’t accept it because he had seen Macdonald’s arrest video and initial denials of the crimes. ‘I saw and heard no signs of remorse. Indeed, if anything there were statements consistent only with continuing indifference.’ Nor did he agree with King’s submission regarding the length of sentence, saying it didn’t adequately capture the seriousness of what Macdonald had done.

After a series of calculations, including treating the crimes against Scott and Kylee separately from the other offences, Justice France calculated a starting point of five years and six months, reduced to five years because Callum Boe was a co-offender. Individually Macdonald received: nine months for shooting Craig Hocken’s trophy stags; nine months for dumping the Sexton family’s milk; 12 months for killing the calves on Paul Barber’s farm; two years for burning down the whare; two years for the intentional damage to Scott and Kylee’s home; and three years for the arson of the old McKinnon homestead. The sentences for the two acts of arson were cumulative—thus the final five-year sentence.

The Crown had sought reparations, itemising the financial loss caused by each attack: $7500 for Craig Hocken’s stags; $5000 for the milk; $5700 for the calves; $462,537 for the house trailers destroyed in the McKinnon homestead arson and $6000 that was owed to Bryan Guy on the house; and $13,500 for damage to Scott and Kylee’s new house. The total was $500,240, and they asked that Macdonald pay $250,000 as his half-share of the total loss. However, Justice France said Macdonald was not in a financial position to pay anything so there was no point in raising expectations.

After the sentence was delivered and the judge had exited, reporters streamed out to file stories and try to elicit comments from those involved. There had been no members of the Guy or Bullock families present this time, but there was a strong group of Macdonald family supporters, just as many friends and relatives had come to Wellington to support them during the murder trial.

Satellite dishes had been set up for TV reporters to give live broadcasts, and cameramen and journalists clustered on the pavement at the bottom of the court’s steps. Investigation heads Sue Schwalger and Grayson Joines walked towards them and wheeled left without comment. Kerry and Marlene Macdonald barely broke their stride as they headed back to their vehicle. A prison van with Macdonald in it pulled out from a back entrance and drove slowly down the road. It was followed by Simon France in the back of a chauffeur-driven Crown BMW.

Despite nobody commenting, the stories of Macdonald’s sentencing were the most read on news websites that day, even pushing aside revelations that Kate Middleton had been snapped topless at a French chateau.