R v Alexander - [2018] NZHC 1584

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE TIHI-Ō-MARU ROHE

CRI-2016-009-009101

[2018] NZHC 1584

THE QUEEN

v

JAYDEN SHANE ALEXANDER

Hearing: 29 June 2018

Appearances:

A R McRae and H V Bennett for the Crown J R Rapley for the Defendant

Date:

29 June 2018

SENTENCING REMARKS OF NICHOLAS DAVIDSON J

A.INTRODUCTION

[1]Mr Alexander, you may remain seated until the end of my Sentencing Remarks.

[2] Ms Tuuta, I gather you are in court? Would you mind coming forward please, I would like to ask you something before I commence the sentencing. Would you like to come to the front bench here? Thank you Ms Tuuta. I am not wanting to put you on the spot and first of all I want to thank you for the report which counsel have recognised, and I want to acknowledge, is very helpful to the Court in many ways.

R v ALEXANDER [2018] NZHC 1584 [29 June 2018]

[3] There was one aspect I wanted to understand a little better, and you have heard it mentioned in the submissions today, that from the Crown’s perspective, a report such as this does not, as it were, count to discount, but it counts to understanding the offender, their cultural background or lack of it, and very much where they figure in their Maori centre of life, in this case in Mr Alexander’s life he has not had that, and that is what I take from your report. But I wanted to understand if you were suggesting more when you talked about the incidents of offenders who were placed in what is now of course Oranga Tamariki, but previously CYFS, compared with those who were not, because I am so conscious of the number of children of all ethnicities who have ended up in the same position going through that and I could not understand quite what you were suggesting about that comparison, because Pakeha, Pacifica children and those or other children in those placements from an early age, often are those that statistically reflect in a higher level of offending later. Did you intend to go beyond that?

[MS TUUTA]

[4] Sir, you have put me a bit on the spot, but it is ok. In relation to meeting obviously with Mr Alexander and hearing his story of really his whole life has been with Pakeha family and really there is, as much as he knows he is Maori, he does not know what that means. He does not know where his grandparents come from. I had a little analogy when I talked to Mr Alexander in an interview and I said to him, he saw a lot of his Maori culture obviously coming from his mother, but nothing beyond that, and I said what happens if you found out that in generations ago there was a leader, a tribal leader, a male figure that you actually connect to, you possibly could know that. He was not…

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 Alexander

Details

AGLC: R v Alexander [2018] NZHC 1584
Case: [2018] NZHC 1584
Decision Date: 29 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Jayden Shane Alexander, was convicted of the murder of his brother, Tainui, and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 11 years. The High Court of New Zealand considered various reports and submissions before determining the sentence. The court found that a whole of life sentence would be manifestly unjust due to Alexander's age, degree of culpability, and the absence of a guilty plea. The court emphasised the importance of Alexander's cultural background and identity in the sentencing process, highlighting the need for rehabilitation and addressing the factors that led to his violent tendencies. The court also acknowledged the efforts of the police, prosecution, and defence in handling the case with sensitivity and restraint.

The court imposed a life sentence with a minimum non-parole period of 11 years, recognising the need to protect the community while also considering Alexander's potential for rehabilitation and change. The court encouraged Alexander to engage in treatment and address the underlying issues that contributed to his criminal behaviour, emphasising the importance of his cultural identity and heritage in his rehabilitation journey. The court also issued a final warning to Alexander regarding the consequences of further serious violence convictions.

Orders