Mr Pauesi Brown pleaded guilty in the High Court at Auckland to charges of murdering Austin Hemmings at Auckland and assaulting Diane Nonu with a weapon. Venning J sentenced Mr Brown to concurrent terms of life and two years imprisonment respectively.[1] He does not appeal against either of those sentences.
[1] R v Brown HC Auckland CRI-2008-004-22829, 10 December 2010.
Venning J also imposed on Mr Brown a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 16 years on the charge of murdering Mr Hemmings. The effect of that sentence, as the Judge was careful to point out, was to defer the period before which Mr Brown would be eligible to apply for parole. Mr Brown appeals against that sentence on a number of grounds.

Facts

We adopt Venning J’s comprehensive summary of the facts as follows:
[6] In September 2008 you were in a relationship with a Ms Ioane. She worked in a call centre in a building off Queen Street. Her work was on an upstairs floor in an office that backed onto and overlooked Mills Lane. She worked there with Ms Nonu. They were friends and would often take cigarette breaks together and discuss matters with each other. Ms Nonu happened to be related to you, being a cousin through adoption. Ms Ioane talked to Ms Nonu about your relationship. It seems that in the course of these discussions Ms Nonu made some negative comments about you, which Ms Ioane repeated to you.
[7] On 25 September 2008, at about half past four, you had a lengthy telephone discussion with Ms Ioane. You became angry and the call was terminated. Ms Ioane was able to sense your anger and was concerned at what you might do. She knew that you were annoyed with Ms Nonu for saying bad things about you. Ms Ioane was concerned enough to send two text messages to you urging you not to do anything stupid.
[8] About three quarters of an hour later Ms Nonu went down to the ground floor and outside the rear of the office onto Mills Lane to take her afternoon cigarette break. You were there in that area and approached her. At the time Ms Nonu was on her cell phone. She acknowledged you by nodding her head. You continued to approach her and you fronted her and tried to back her into a corner of the building. You stood inches away from her face in a threatening and aggressive manner.
[9] About this time the deceased, Mr Hemmings, came out from an adjacent building on his…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Brown v R

Details

AGLC: Brown v R [2011] NZCA 95
Case: [2011] NZCA 95
Decision Date: 25 March 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal by Pauesi Brown against the minimum period of imprisonment of 16 years he was sentenced to for the murder of Austin Hemmings. The appeal was dismissed. Brown had pleaded guilty to the murder of Hemmings and to assaulting Diane Nonu with a weapon. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed by the High Court was manifestly excessive.

The appeal raised several grounds, including the failure to properly credit Brown's guilty plea, the lack of proper credit for his remorse, the failure to consider his prospects of rehabilitation and other mitigating factors, and the allocation of time to the statutory purposes of accountability, denunciation, deterrence, and community protection. The Court examined each of these arguments closely. The Court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the guilty plea, the remorse, and the prospects of rehabilitation, concluding that Brown's extensive history of violent offending, including the use of knives, justified the sentence.

The Court held that the sentencing judge had properly assessed the statutory purposes and found that the aggravating features of the offence, the need for punishment, and the necessity for community protection justified the sentence of 16 years. The Court of Appeal found no material error in the sentencing judge's approach and dismissed the appeal.

Orders