R v Burns-Wong-Tung - [2023] NZHC 350

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2021-092-009236

[2023] NZHC 350

THE KING

v

JIMEL DESMA TIANA BURNS-WONG-TUNG

Hearing: 14 December 2023

Counsel:

T Simmonds and K Karpik for Crown

R Mansfield KC and H Stuart for Defendant

Sentence:

14 December 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF MUIR J

Solicitors: Kayes Fletcher Walker, Auckland

R v BURNS-WONG-TUNG [2023] NZHC 350 [14 December 2023]

Introduction

[1] Ms Jimel Burns-Wong-Tung, on 8 September 2023 a jury found you guilty of the murder of 22-year-old Mr Rangiwhero Ngaronoa. You now appear for sentence.

[2] In respect of a conviction for murder, I must sentence you to life imprisonment, unless that would be manifestly unjust.1 If I sentence you to life, I am required to impose a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI).2 That period is the period of imprisonment that you must serve before becoming eligible for parole. Pursuant to s 103(2) of the Sentencing Act 2002, the MPI I impose must be at least 10 years. If, however, I find that the murder of Mr Ngaronoa was offending within the categories specified in s 104(1) of the Act, the MPI I impose must be at least 17 years, unless doing so would be manifestly unjust.

[3] The Crown submits that your offending engages s 104 and seeks a sentence of life imprisonment with an MPI of 17 years. Your counsel, Mr Mansfield KC, submits that s 104 is not engaged and that the MPI imposed on you should be no longer than 10 years. That contest falls to me to decide.

Background

[4]I begin with a brief account of your offending.

[5] The events which led to Mr Ngaronoa’s tragic death have their genesis in an issue which arose between the two of you in late November 2021. It was reported to you that Mr Ngaronoa had made comments about possible sexualised behaviour by one of your young relatives, towards a toddler within your wider orbit of whānau and friends. You took serious offence at the comments and sought retribution.

[6] You enlisted the assistance of your then partner, Mr Tago Hemopo; your mother, Ms Kelly-Anne Burns; and Mr Ngaronoa’s uncles, Mr Thomas and

1 Sentencing Act 2002, s 102(1).
2 Sentencing Act, s 103(1)(a).

Rocky Ngapera. The general plan was to have Mr Ngaronoa brought to you for what the other participants thought would be a hiding.3

[7] To that end, Mr Ngaronoa was effectively taken captive by the Ngapera brothers who, on the morning of 21 November 2021, drove him around various addresses in their SUV before ultimately delivering him to a pre-arranged rendezvous in Myna Place, Weymouth. Mr Ngaronoa was fearful and agitated about his impending fate.

[8] Shortly after midday, you were driven by Mr Hemopo to Myna Place. Brothers Robert and Ford Stevens, young relatives of Mr Hemopo who happened to be at your house that morning, were in the back seats of the vehicle. You told them there…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Burns-Wong-Tung and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] NZHC 350
Decision Date: 14 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Burns-Wong-Tung, the defendant, Jimel Burns-Wong-Tung, was convicted of the murder of Mr Rangiwhero Ngaronoa. The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, presided over by Judge Muir, was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Ms Burns-Wong-Tung, which required consideration of the brutal nature of the murder and the defendant's personal circumstances. The court was required to decide if a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 17 years, as stipulated by the Sentencing Act 2002, would be appropriate or if it would be manifestly unjust. The Crown argued for a 17-year MPI, citing the brutal and callous nature of the crime, while the defence contended that a 10-year MPI would be sufficient.

The court meticulously examined the facts of the case, highlighting the premeditated and violent nature of the attack orchestrated by Ms Burns-Wong-Tung, who, along with accomplices, lured Mr Ngaronoa to a location where she brutally stabbed him multiple times. The court noted the extreme violence and indifference displayed during and after the attack, finding these actions to meet the criteria for the specified MPI under section 104(1)(e) of the Sentencing Act. However, considering the defendant's youth, background, and potential for rehabilitation, the court concluded that imposing a 17-year MPI would be manifestly unjust. Ultimately, the court sentenced Ms Burns-Wong-Tung to life imprisonment with a 15-year MPI.

Orders