Kingz v The King - [2025] NZCA 390

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA435/2024
[2025] NZCA 390

BETWEEN	BOSTON KINGZ Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	16 June 2025
Court:	Ellis, Peters and Walker JJ
Counsel:	D J Allan for Applicant C A Brook and W J Harvey for Respondent
Judgment:	5 August 2025 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for an extension of time to appeal is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Peters J)

In July 2005, MacKenzie J sentenced the applicant, Mr Boston Kingz (whose name was then Ross Anderson), to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 11 years (MPI).[1] This sentence was imposed for the murder of Mr Chevy Koltai. The Judge also sentenced Mr Kingz to a concurrent term of four years’ imprisonment on a charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, the victim of this offending being Mr Kingz’s former girlfriend, Ms Terri‑Ann Murray. Mr Kingz had pleaded guilty to both offences.
[1]R v Anderson HC Palmerston North CRI-2005-454-23, 19 July 2005 [judgment under appeal].
Mr Kingz now seeks an extension of time to appeal against his sentence of life imprisonment. If granted an extension, Mr Kingz proposes to argue on appeal that the sentence of life imprisonment was/is manifestly unjust, and that a finite sentence should be imposed in its place.
The Crown opposes an extension of time. Whilst the Crown does not contend that it is prejudiced by what is an almost 20-year delay, it does submit that numerous factors count against an extension.

Background

Mr Kingz and Ms Murray, both 18 at the relevant time (April 2005), had been in a relationship for about 14 months. Shortly before the offending, Ms Murray had ended her relationship with Mr Kingz and entered into a new relationship with Mr Kingz’s friend, Mr Koltai. Mr Kingz suspected that Mr Koltai was Ms Murray’s new partner but apparently Mr Koltai had assured Mr Kingz several times that he was not.
On the day of the offending, Mr Kingz had arranged with Ms Murray that she would come to his flat so that they could talk matters over. However, when Ms Murray arrived she was accompanied by Mr Koltai. There was some dispute, referred to in MacKenzie J’s sentencing notes, as to whether Ms Murray had told Mr Kingz that she was bringing Mr Koltai. Mr Kingz’s account was that she had not. In any event, having seen Mr Koltai kiss Ms Murray when they got out of the car, Mr Kingz took a knife, went outside, and stabbed Mr Koltai three times. Mr Koltai fell to the ground, following which Mr Kingz chased after Ms Murray, stabbing her twice. After that, Mr Kingz got into Mr Koltai’s vehicle and drove it at Mr Koltai. The car narrowly missed running over Mr Koltai because neighbours managed to pull him to safety. Mr Koltai nonetheless died later that day, in hospital. Ms Murray was…

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 Kingz v The King

Details

AGLC: Kingz v The King [2025] NZCA 390
Case: [2025] NZCA 390
Decision Date: 5 August 2025 at 11.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kingz v The King involves Boston Kingz, who seeks an extension of time to appeal against his sentence of life imprisonment for the murder of Mr Chevy Koltai and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to Mr Kingz's former girlfriend, Ms Terri-Ann Murray. The Crown opposes the extension, arguing against the delay and the potential precedent it would set. The application was heard by Ellis, Peters, and Walker JJ, with counsel D J Allan representing the applicant and C A Brook and W J Harvey representing the Crown.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the delay in filing the application was justified and whether granting the extension would undermine the principle of finality in criminal appeals. The court considered the strength of the proposed appeal, the length and reasons for the delay, the impact on the administration of justice, and the absence of prejudice to the Crown.

In its judgment, the court declined to grant the extension. The primary reasons for this decision were the extraordinary length of the delay, which far exceeded any previous cases, and the potential impact on the principle of finality in criminal proceedings. The court also noted that the Parole Board had not considered Mr Kingz suitable for release after nearly 20 years in custody, suggesting that a finite sentence might not be appropriate.

The court concluded that while Mr Kingz had a reasonable case for a finite sentence, the length of the delay was so significant that it would be inappropriate to grant an extension. The court's decision maintains the balance between the interests of justice and the need for finality in criminal cases.

Orders