R v Black - [2013] NZHC 3434

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

CRI 2013-016-000597 [2013] NZHC 3434

THE QUEEN

v

CRYSTAL LOUISE BLACK KRYSTEL THERESE POKAI

Appearances:
S B Manning and K Laurenson for the Crown

A Simperingham for Ms Black
J C Mathieson for Ms Pokai

Date:

16 December 2013

SENTENCING REMARKS OF GILBERT J

R v BLACK AND POKAI [2013] NZHC 3434 [16 December 2013]

[1] Ms Black and Ms Pokai, you appear for sentencing having pleaded guilty to the following offences:

(a) manslaughter; (b) theft;
(c) conversion of a motor vehicle;

(d) attempting to use a document to obtain money; and

(e) attempting to pervert the course of justice.

[2] Manslaughter carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The other offences carry maximum penalties of seven years’ imprisonment apart from theft which has a maximum penalty of 12 months’ imprisonment.

[3] Although you have pleaded guilty to these offences, convictions have not yet been entered, nor has any warning been given to you under the three strikes legislation. Accordingly, I enter convictions against each of you on these offences, to which you have pleaded guilty. I will also now give you the warning that I am obliged to give you under the three strikes law. This warning is required because manslaughter is a serious violence offence for the purposes of the three strikes legislation.

[4] Given your conviction for manslaughter, you are now subject to the three strikes law. If you are convicted of any serious violence 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. 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. You will be given a written notice outlining these consequences which lists the other serious violence offences.

The facts

[5] On the evening of 28 December 2012, the two of you, who were then living together in a relationship, attended a concert with friends. You had a dispute as a result of which Ms Pokai left. She accepted a ride from the victim, Mr Singh, who was driving past and offered to drive her home. Ms Pokai exchanged cellphone numbers with him, but actually gave Ms Black’s number.

[6] On the morning of 29 December 2012, Mr Singh sent a text to Ms Pokai and a large number of texts were exchanged that day during which arrangements were made for Ms Pokai to meet Mr Singh at his home at 3.00 pm. Mr Singh wanted to have sex with Ms Pokai but she refused and returned home.

[7] The two of you later formed a plan to lure Mr Singh to your house by leading him to believe that Ms Pokai wanted to have sex with him. At 5.48 pm that…

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 Black

Details

AGLC: R v Black [2013] NZHC 3434
Case: [2013] NZHC 3434
Decision Date: 16 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Judge M.A. Gilbert presided over the sentencing of Crystal Louise Black and Krystel Therese Pokai, who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter, theft, conversion of a motor vehicle, and two charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence for these serious offences, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors involved. The court was required to decide on the starting point for sentencing manslaughter, whether the sentences should be cumulative or concurrent, and the extent of any discount for the guilty pleas. The court also had to consider the seriousness of the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Judge Gilbert found that the starting point for the manslaughter charge was eight years' imprisonment, considering the premeditation, extreme violence, seriousness of the injuries, and multiple attackers. The court found that a sentence of three years' imprisonment was appropriate for the charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The court decided that the sentences should be cumulative, as the offences were different in kind. The court rejected the defendants' claims of remorse and granted a discount of 20% for their guilty pleas.

The final sentence for both defendants was eight years and eight months' imprisonment, with the sentences for manslaughter and attempting to pervert the course of justice to be served cumulatively and the sentences for conversion of a motor vehicle, attempting to use a document to obtain money, and theft to be served concurrently. The court also issued a warning under the three strikes legislation, as the manslaughter conviction classified as a serious violence offence.

Orders