Marong v The King - [2024] NZSC 115

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 25/2024
[2024] NZSC 115

BETWEEN	SAINEY MARONG Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Ellen France, Williams and Kós JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person M J R Blaschke and M J Lillico for Respondent
Judgment:	13 September 2024

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application to set aside the earlier abandonment of the appeal against conviction is declined.

BThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

Sainey Marong was convicted after trial in 2018 of the murder of Renee Duckmanton. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 18 years.[1] He has filed an application for leave to appeal against conviction. His appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in a judgment delivered on 28 November 2018.[2] He was subsequently given leave by the Court of Appeal to appeal, out of time, against sentence but that appeal was also dismissed.[3]

Background

[1]R v Marong [2018] NZHC 748 (Mander J).

[2] Marong v R [2018] NZCA 531 (Miller, Woolford and Collins JJ) [CA judgment].

[3]Marong v R [2020] NZCA 179. The notice of appeal also included an appeal against conviction, which was abandoned.

The key facts were set out by the Court of Appeal in its judgment on the conviction appeal. As the Court explained, the victim was a sex worker. Mr Marong picked her up from a central Christchurch street, took her to the outskirts of the city and strangled her. He dumped her body on a roadside the following day, dousing it and setting it on fire. His semen was found inside the victim’s body. His internet browsing history indicated that he had planned the offence. He had been researching the following: kidnapping; information about local sex workers; how to make someone unconscious; necrophilia; and destroying DNA traces by burning a body.
At trial, Mr Marong was represented by senior counsel. Mr Marong gave evidence. He admitted killing the victim. The main focus of his defence was insanity. He argued, first, that he did not appreciate what he was doing. In this respect, although he accepted he had assaulted Ms Duckmanton, he said he just wanted to stop the noise. Second, he argued he had no intention to kill and that he did not understand the risk attached to what he was doing. Finally, he said that he had a disease of the mind. This part of the defence was advanced on the basis that Mr Marong was a diabetic and he was not taking his insulin. That combination can lead to a hypoglycaemic state, which meant Mr Marong did not understand the nature and quality of what he had done. Nor did he understand its moral wrongfulness. In this regard, the defence relied on evidence of his strange behaviour over a number of weeks prior to the killing. In addition to his internet searches, there was evidence that he was having…

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 Marong v The King

Details

AGLC: Marong v The King [2024] NZSC 115
Case: [2024] NZSC 115
Decision Date: 13 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Sainey Marong sought to appeal against his conviction for the murder of Renee Duckmanton, and the Court considered his application for leave to appeal. The case was assessed on multiple grounds including insanity, intent, the admissibility of certain evidence, and treatment while on remand. The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed Marong's appeal against conviction and sentence, and Marong's current application was effectively an attempt to set aside the abandonment of his earlier appeal against conviction. The Court was tasked with determining whether the abandonment should be set aside and whether leave to appeal should be granted.

The Court examined the grounds of appeal, noting that the insanity defence had been addressed by the Court of Appeal, which had found no basis to conclude that Marong was insane. The Court found that the evidence presented did not support the conclusion that Marong lacked the necessary intent to commit murder. The Court also noted that the issues relating to the admissibility of evidence and Marong's treatment on remand would be considered as if for the first time, which the Court was reluctant to do. Consequently, the Court concluded that the criteria for leave to appeal were not met.

The Court decided that the application to set aside the earlier abandonment of the appeal was declined and that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The Court found no grounds to revisit the earlier decisions or to consider the proposed grounds of appeal as this would amount to reconsidering the case as if it were being heard for the first time. The Court also noted that there was no appearance of a miscarriage of justice and no sufficient prospects of success on the proposed grounds. As a result, the appeal was dismissed and no leave to appeal was granted.

Orders