Ethan Webster (centre) and William Candy (right) were sentenced in the High Court at New Plymouth in March 2023 for the murder of Jacob Ramsay. Photo / Tara Shaskey
The life sentence of a teen farmer involved in the murder of his colleague is set to be quashed.
Ethan Webster was 18 when he and William Mark Candy, 39, murdered Jacob Mills Ramsay by beating him, chaining him to a car by his ankle and dragging him 1km along a gravel tanker track.
They then dumped Ramsay’s body into a man-made rubbish pit at the dairy farm in Oaonui, South Taranaki, where they all worked.
The July 2022 murder was motivated by an alleged “small” debt Ramsay had racked up with the offenders.
Candy and Webster were workers on the same farm as Ramsay. While the two had been in their roles for at least three years, Ramsay’s employment had begun about one month before his death.
Ramsay’s widow, Sarah Tasker, was pregnant with their third child when he was killed.
Webster and Candy admitted murdering the 33-year-old and were sentenced to life imprisonment in the High Court at New Plymouth in March 2023.
Candy was given a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 17 years, while Webster received a 12-year MPI.
Jodie Shannon Hughes, Candy’s then partner, was charged alongside them but was acquitted of murder at a trial and found guilty of manslaughter. She is serving a sentence of five years and six months.
But whether Webster had the mental capacity to admit murder, and if his life sentence was manifestly unjust, has since come under the microscope of the Court of Appeal.
Today, the senior court released its decision in which it concluded Webster’s life sentence would be quashed once it had determined a fixed sentence to replace it.
The new sentence follows information about Webster that has come to light since his sentencing.
Despite his imminent success in his appeal against his sentence, the Court of Appeal found there was no miscarriage of justice in relation to his conviction.
According to the decision, Webster has since been diagnosed with mental impairments attributable to foetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD).
While it was determined there were no issues with his fitness to plead before he admitted the murder charge, more reports were ordered after his sentencing to assist in his appeal against his life sentence.
Those assessments found he met the criteria for mild intellectual disability, confirmed he had dyslexia and also led to the FASD diagnosis.
This gave rise to an appeal against Webster’s conviction, on the grounds intellectual disability was a recognised impairment for the test of unfitness to stand trial within the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act.
It was submitted he was, on balance, unfit at the time, leading to a miscarriage of justice.
An intellectual disability may also have been relevant to whether Webster had the capacity to form the necessary intent to meet a charge of murder.
More assessments followed, ordered by the Crown and the court, which further confirmed Webster did suffer cognitive deficits likely related to FASD, but found he did not meet the criteria for an “intellectual disability”.
One report concluded that whether he was fit to plead and stand trial at the time was unclear and “finely balanced”, while another determined there were ”reasonable grounds to consider” that, “on the balance of probabilities”, Webster may have been unfit at the time.
However, both concluded that if he were to currently plead and stand trial he would be fit to do so, with the provision of a communication assistant.
In considering Webster’s appeal against conviction, the Court of Appeal was not satisfied the evidence proved he was unfit to plead at the relevant time.
“Rather, it establishes that, while Mr Webster may have benefited from a communication assistant, he entered his plea understanding the important matters relevant to his decision to enter his guilty plea,” the decision stated.
The court relied on the reports concluding that Webster was presently fit to stand trial with appropriate supports, and there was no clear evidence his cognitive impairments had changed in the past two years.
Among its other reasons, the court also relied on the reports not conclusively finding he was unfit at the time, Webster being an active participant in aspects of his earlier conversations with his lawyer, and evidence he did understand the legal process.
The court also found there was no miscarriage of justice relating to the defence’s inability, because of Webster’s mental impairment being undiagnosed at the time, to recognise and evaluate a defence structured around a lack of murderous intent.
On Webster’s appeal against his sentence, the Court of Appeal considered his mental impairment, attributable to FASD, was new information and materially relevant to his culpability, in addition to his youth.
It found he was vulnerable to Candy’s influence.
“He lacked the ability to think through for himself whether he should be doing what Mr Candy had set up for his involvement, not only because of the cognitive deficits of youth but also because of the impairments attributable to FASD.
“His vulnerability and impairment in his executive functioning helps to explain why Mr Webster engaged in the violence at the farm engineered by Mr Candy and felt unable to get out of the car even though Mr Candy warned him of the likely consequences.”
In determining the appeal against sentence, the court also considered Webster’s low risk of reoffending, his remorse and his rehabilitation prospects, the length of his MPI and life-time parole. Webster would not be eligible for parole until he was 32.
“We acknowledge that the brutal and callous nature of the murder strongly points to life imprisonment for denunciation and accountability purposes.
“However, we consider that the circumstances in this case combine to render a life imprisonment sentence manifestly unjust when public safety concerns do not loom large and a determinate sentence can appropriately meet the principles and purposes of sentencing and is the less restrictive outcome.”
The Court of Appeal pointed to the defence’s submission at sentencing that Webster should receive 16 years imprisonment with an MPI of eight years.
However, the senior court had not received submissions from the Crown on the appropriate determinate sentence and MPI if the life imprisonment sentence was quashed.
“In the circumstances, we adjourn the sentencing appeal to enable the Crown to file submissions on this aspect. For the avoidance of doubt, the submissions are not to address the [law around life imprisonment] issue.
“We have heard from both parties on this issue and have determined that the life imprisonment sentence will be quashed once we have determined the determinate sentence that will replace it.”
The appeal was adjourned until February, when the final submissions were expected.
On the evening of July 29, 2022, Ramsay was in Ōakura, about a 30-minute drive from the farm. There, he texted another farm worker asking to be picked up.
When Candy got wind of the communication, he told the farm worker to continue messaging Ramsay so he could find him and confront him about the alleged money owed.
Candy found Ramsay at the Ōakura cemetery and immediately punched him in the face and pushed him down a bank.
As Ramsay attempted to defend himself, Candy continued to punch him and wrestled him to the ground.
He accused Ramsay of stealing money and “ruining the farm” while beating him.
Candy then grabbed Ramsay and forced him into the car. He was driven back to the farm while being periodically assaulted by Candy.
He was no longer resisting and was leaning against the passenger door in a semi-conscious state.
When they pulled into the farm, Webster was awaiting their arrival.
Ramsay was now unconscious. Candy shoved his body from the car and on to the ground. His eyes were closed and he was limp and floppy.
Webster grabbed Ramsay by the throat and delivered a number of blows to his head, only stopping when he thought he had broken his hand.
Candy kicked the victim and Webster began stomping on his head.
The two beat Ramsay for a further 10 minutes. At one point, a witness pleaded for them to stop and take Ramsay to the hospital.
But Candy instead fetched a chain and tied Ramsay to the back of the vehicle.
The witness told him what he was doing was wrong but Candy warned them to back off, or they would “be next”.
After slowly driving forward, Candy stopped the vehicle and Webster jumped into the passenger seat.
“You don’t want to be in here for this, this is serious s***. He might be dead by the time we get to the end of the track,” Candy told Webster.
But Webster remained in the car and for about 900m, Ramsay was dragged by his ankle down a gravel tanker track and across a muddy paddock.
The two then detached the chain from the car and pulled Ramsay at least another 20m to the edge of a rubbish pit, where they dumped his body.
Ramsay was bleeding profusely and the skin on the rear of his head had been torn off down to his skull, giving the appearance that he had been “scalped”, the court heard.
He sustained a host of injuries, including numerous fractures and abrasions to his entire back and buttocks. An autopsy determined he died as a result of multiple blunt-force injuries.
Tara Shaskey joined NZME in 2022 and is currently an assistant editor and reporter for the Open Justice team. She has been a reporter since 2014 and previously worked at Stuff covering crime and justice, arts and entertainment, and Māori issues.