Manukau v The Queen - [2011] NZCA 108

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA761/2010
[2011] NZCA 108

BETWEEN IVAN LESLIE MANUKAU
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

Hearing: 21 March 2011

Court: Randerson, Simon France and Lang JJ

Counsel: K W Burroughs for Appellant
J M Jelas for Respondent

Judgment: 28 March 2011 at 3 p.m.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Simon France J)

Introduction

Mr Manukau appeals the minimum non‑parole period imposed following his plea of guilty to murder.[1] Mr Manukau’s sole complaint is that his twelve year term was excessive given that a co‑offender, Adrian Norris, received a ten year term.

Facts

[1] R v Norris HC Hamilton CRI-2009-019-9786, 30 September 2010.

The victim, Mr Piki Kingi, was apparently a drug dealer. Two of the four people charged with his murder had separate grievances with him arising from various drug activities. One of the offenders, Mr Todd Marteley, had assisted Mr Kingi in stealing a quantity of a precursor substance from a manufacturer. Mr Marteley believed Mr Kingi had then sold the product on to gang members without accounting to Mr Marteley for his share.
The second of the four offenders with a grievance was the present appellant, Mr Ivan Manukau. He was a customer of Piki Kingi’s, and his annoyance stemmed from a belief that Mr Kingi had been supplying him with substandard product.
Messrs Marteley and Manukau, who were known to each other, met at Manukau’s house to plan their revenge. They were accompanied by Moana Heremaia, who was Mr Marteley’s de facto partner, and Adrian Norris. He was a younger man who was related to Ms Heremaia and who spent considerable time at Mr Manukau’s home, occasionally sleeping over.
The plan agreed upon was to lure the victim to Todd Marteley’s house, and there set upon him. Ms Heremaia and Mr Manukau were to act as lookouts from a nearby park. Meanwhile, Marteley and Norris would wait inside and attack Mr Kingi when he arrived to sell the drugs. Mr Manukau suffers from poor health and would have been of little assistance in the physical assault.
The pretext used to get Kingi to the house was a drug deal. Mr Marteley falsely claimed to Mr Kingi that he had recently sold a boat and, therefore, had available cash for a drug purchase.
The plan was duly put into effect. Mr Marteley had sharpened a tomahawk for the occasion and Norris was armed with a cricket bat obtained from Mr Manukau. The assault began by Norris striking with the cricket bat. Thereafter, blows were inflicted with both weapons. It is believed death would have occurred quickly, although there were some defence wounds.
Following the attack, Mr Kingi was wrapped in a rug. He was placed in his car, which was driven to another area and abandoned. It was not realised by the authorities that there had been a homicide until Mr Marteley contacted police. Marteley said there had been an…

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 Manukau v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Manukau v The Queen [2011] NZCA 108
Case: [2011] NZCA 108
Decision Date: 28 March 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Manukau v The Queen, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand addressed an appeal by Ivan Leslie Manukau against the minimum non-parole period imposed following his plea of guilty to murder. Manukau contended that the twelve-year term imposed on him was excessive compared to the ten-year term received by his co-offender, Adrian Norris. The case involved the murder of Piki Kingi, a drug dealer, by a group of four individuals with grievances against him, including Manukau.

The legal issues before the court included whether the disparity in sentencing between Manukau and Norris was unjustifiable and gross, as per the test set out in R v Rameka. The court was required to determine whether the sentencing judge's assessment of the offenders' culpability and the factors influencing the disparity in sentencing were sound and justifiable.

The Court of Appeal held that the disparity in sentence was neither gross nor unjustifiable. The sentencing judge had appropriately balanced the various factors, including the personal circumstances of the offenders, in determining the appropriate non-parole periods. The judge had considered factors such as the timing of the pleas, the role of each offender in the crime, and the personal circumstances, including health issues, of each offender. The court found that the differences in sentencing were explicable and based on factors that made it open to the judge to assess the final culpability differently. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

This decision underscores the principle that while different judges might reach a different balance in sentencing, the disparity in sentence must be justifiable and not gross for an appeal to succeed. In this case, the court found the disparity to be within the bounds of acceptable judicial discretion.

Orders