R v Akuhata - [2015] NZHC 1098

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2012-088-2596 [2015] NZHC 1098

THE QUEEN

v

JIMMY PETER AKUHATA

Hearing: 20 May 2015

Appearances:

M B Smith and R B Annandale for the Crown
C S Cull and A M Dooney for the Defendant

Sentence:

20 May 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF ELLIS J

Counsel/Solicitors:
M B Smith, Crown Solicitor, Whangarei
C S Cull, Barrister, Kerikeri

R v AKUHATA [2015] NZHC 1098 [20 May 2015]

[1] Mr Akuhata there are lot of things I have to say before I sentence you so I am going to let you sit down until the end when I will get you to stand up. But I want you to listen very carefully to what I am going to say to you.

[2] Mr Akuhata, you appear for sentencing today after recently pleading guilty to murdering Ashlee Edwards on 27 July 2012.

[3] The first thing I need to do is to give you a first strike warning, which is as follows.

[4] Given your conviction for murder you are now subject to the three strikes law. I am going to give you a warning of the consequences of another serious violence conviction. You will also be given a written notice outlining those consequences.

[5] The warning is that if you are convicted of any serious violent offence other than murder committed after this warning and if a judge imposes a sentence of imprisonment then you will serve that sentence without parole or early release. And if you are convicted of murder committed after this warning then you must be sentenced to life imprisonment. That will be served without parole unless it would be manifestly unjust. In that event the judge must sentence you to a minimum term of imprisonment.

[6] Now, before sentencing you I am going to try and explain to you and to the other people in Court today, the way in which the law says I must arrive at your sentence.

[7] First, when a person is convicted of murder, New Zealand law requires the Court to impose a sentence of life imprisonment, unless such a sentence would be plainly unjust.1 In your case, Mr Akuhata, both the Crown lawyer Mr Smith and your lawyer Ms Cull have agreed that a life sentence would not be unjust. I agree with that. So both the starting point and the end point is that you will be sentenced
to life imprisonment.

1 Sentencing Act 2002, s 102.

[8] But although you will be sentenced to life imprisonment for Ashlee’s murder, I must also decide on the minimum period of time that you must spend in prison. This is because even a person who is sentenced to life is able, eventually, to apply for parole. So the minimum period is the shortest time that you will have to spend in jail before you can ask for parole. But just because you can ask for parole after a certain length of time does not mean…

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 R v Akuhata

Details

AGLC: R v Akuhata [2015] NZHC 1098
Case: [2015] NZHC 1098
Decision Date: 20 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Akuhata was convicted of the murder of Ashlee Edwards, which occurred on 27 July 2012. Akuhata's sentencing hearing was held on 20 May 2015. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the mandatory minimum imprisonment period (MPI) of 17 years applied to this case and, if not, what the appropriate MPI should be.

The court concluded that while the murder involved a breach of a protection order and violence in a domestic relationship context, it did not meet the criteria for the mandatory 17-year MPI, which applies to the most egregious cases. The court considered various factors, including the vulnerability of the victim, the brutality of the crime, and the need to denounce family violence and breaches of protection orders. Ultimately, the court determined that a 17-year MPI was appropriate due to the circumstances of the murder and the need to protect the community.

Akuhata was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years. The court reduced the MPI by two years to reflect Akuhata's guilty plea, noting that he could not be held fully responsible for the delay in his plea due to his brain injury.

Orders