Purutanga v R - [2023] NZCA 442

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA550/2022
[2023] NZCA 442

BETWEEN	CORY PURUTANGA Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	20 June 2023
Court:	Goddard, Brewer and Osborne JJ
Counsel:	J E L Carruthers for Appellant R L Mann for Respondent
Judgment:	13 September 2023 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Brewer J)

Introduction

On 31 August 2022, Moore J sentenced Mr Purutanga, on one charge of murder, to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 17 years.[1]
[1]R v P [2022] NZHC 2197.
Mr Purutanga appeals the length of his MPI.[2] He submits it is manifestly unjust. In particular, the Judge:
(a)gave inadequate credit for Mr Purutanga’s guilty plea; and
(b)was unduly dismissive of Mr Purutanga’s personal mitigating factors.
[2]Mr Purutanga also appealed Lang J’s refusal to grant him permanent name suppression: Purutanga v R [2022] NZHC 2616. He no longer pursues that appeal and so his interim name suppression will lapse with the delivery of this judgment.
We must allow the appeal if satisfied that there is an error in the sentence and that a different sentence should be imposed.

Background

We reproduce Moore J’s recitation of the facts of the offending:
[4]       H was your long-term partner. The two of you began your relationship some 15 years ago. You were teenagers at the time. When she was 16, H moved into your home with your parents. Approximately two years into your relationship, you and H had your first child together. You went on to have another four more children together although one died shortly after he was born. At the time you killed H your surviving children were aged 13, 10, 4 and four months.
[5]       Your relationship was a volatile one. You commonly abused H both verbally and physically. You hit her and you gave her “hidings”. You were controlling, often preventing her from leaving the home or requiring her to return on those occasions when she did venture out.
[6]       On 16 December 2020, you were at home with H and your children. Sometime during the day, you badly beat her. You broke her nose and you caused bruising to her scalp and face.
[7]       Later that evening, your eldest son contacted your mother asking her to come over. He feared you would have another “fight”. Your mother video-called H. H signalled that she needed help. Plainly she was terrified you might find out that she was talking with your mother. She was forced to communicate in a non-verbal way so you wouldn’t hear and subject her to more violence.
[8]       At around 9:15 pm, your mother arrived at your home. She attempted to mediate. Because of your behaviour, she arranged for your father to pick up the two older children.
[9]       H went into one of the bedrooms with the two youngest children, while your mother attempted to distract…

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 Purutanga v R

Details

AGLC: Purutanga v R [2023] NZCA 442
Case: [2023] NZCA 442
Decision Date: 13 September 2023 at 11.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cory Purutanga appeals against the minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 17 years imposed by the High Court. He submits that the sentence is manifestly unjust, particularly because the High Court gave inadequate credit for his guilty plea and personal mitigating factors. The Crown responds that the sentence is appropriate and that the High Court properly assessed the mitigating factors.

The Court of Appeal finds that the High Court properly assessed the mitigating factors and that the MPI was not manifestly unjust. The Court notes that the murder was committed with a high level of brutality, cruelty, and callousness, and that the victim was particularly vulnerable. The Court finds that the High Court's assessment of the starting point for the MPI was appropriate, and that the one-year discount for the guilty plea was within the range available. The Court concludes that an MPI of 17 years is not manifestly unjust in the context of this case.

The appeal is dismissed.

Orders