R v Chourn - [2021] NZHC 1528

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2020-019-5021

[2021] NZHC 1528

THE QUEEN

v

NARATH CHOURN

Hearing: 25 June 2021

Appearances:

D J McWilliam for Crown R Laybourn for Defendant

Judgment:

25 June 2021

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Solicitors:
Hamilton Legal, Hamilton

R v CHOURN [2021] NZHC 1528 [25 June 2021]

[1] Ms Chourn, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to charges of kidnapping1 and manslaughter.2

Background

[2] You are to be sentenced on the basis of an agreed summary of facts dated 2 February 2021. This records that your offending had its origins in events that occurred at and following a New Year’s Eve party held at a residential address in Hamilton on 31 December 2019. Several persons who attended the party consumed a powdered substance they believed to be the Class B controlled drug MDMA, or ecstasy. A number of them suffered adverse reactions and one subsequently died. A subsequent analysis of the substance showed that it contained traces of heroin.

[3] Associates of the person who died decided they would endeavour to try to identify the person or persons who had supplied the substance that led to their friend’s death. Their object was to mete out punishment to that person.

[4] Your role in events began after you were instructed by one of your co- defendants, Ms R, to find a Mr Sao Yean, whom it was believed may have been involved in the supply of the contaminated substance. Ms R has yet to stand trial, so I have anonymised her name. She instructed you to find and bring Mr Yean to her address.

[5] Approximately ten days later Mr Yean visited your home. You immediately sent Ms R a series of text messages telling her Mr Yean was with you and that you would bring him to her address. You and two associates then took Mr Yean to Ms R’s house where you found Ms R and several other persons awaiting your arrival. Mr Yean was then taken from your vehicle and escorted into a garage. You left the address at about that point.

[6] Approximately 15 minutes later you sent a text message to Ms R asking her not to hurt Mr Yean too much. After you left Ms R’s address Mr Yean was assaulted and interrogated about his suspected involvement in the supply of the contaminated

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 209 – maximum penalty14 years imprisonment.
2 S 171 – maximum penalty life imprisonment.

substance. The assaults ultimately resulted in Mr Yean’s death. His body was not found for some time. It was ultimately found in a trough on a rural property.

[7] The police investigation into Mr Yean’s death then took a considerable period of time. When the police eventually spoke to you, you acknowledged you had transported Mr Yean to Ms R’s address. You told the police Mr Yean had exited the vehicle of his own free will…

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 Chourn

Details

AGLC: R v Chourn [2021] NZHC 1528
Case: [2021] NZHC 1528
Decision Date: 25 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Narath Chourn, was sentenced by the High Court of New Zealand on charges of kidnapping and manslaughter. The case originated from a New Year’s Eve party in Hamilton, where several attendees consumed a substance they believed to be MDMA, but which actually contained heroin, resulting in the death of one individual. The defendant was involved in locating and transporting a person suspected of supplying the contaminated substance to others, who subsequently assaulted and killed the individual. The court accepted the defendant’s plea on the basis of being a party to the offences under section 66(2) of the Crimes Act 1961.

The legal issues included determining an appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering both aggravating and mitigating factors, and imposing a cumulative sentence that reflected the overall culpability of the defendant’s offending while adhering to the principles of totality. The court had to balance the defendant’s involvement in the offences, her guilty plea, and her personal background, which included a difficult childhood and long-term methamphetamine addiction. The court also had to account for a prior sentence the defendant received for drug-related charges.

The court determined a starting point of four years six months imprisonment, reflecting the planning, premeditation, and vigilante nature of the defendant’s actions, as well as the resulting death. Discounts were applied for the defendant’s guilty plea and her difficult background, reducing the starting point to two years eight months. Considering the need for a cumulative sentence, the court imposed a reduction of eight months to reflect totality principles, resulting in a final sentence of two years imprisonment on each charge, to be served concurrently but cumulatively with the prior sentence. This led to an effective total sentence of four years three months imprisonment.

Orders