R v Cornelius - [2013] NZHC 3435

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

CRI 2013-016-002624 [2013] NZHC 3435

THE QUEEN

v

SELWYN DAVID CORNELIUS

Appearances: S B Manning and K Laurenson for the Crown
A Simperingham for Mr Cornelius

Date: 16 December 2013

SENTENCING REMARKS OF GILBERT J

R v SELWYN DAVID CORNELIUS [2013] NZHC 3435 [16 December 2013]

Introduction

[1] Mr Cornelius, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to the murder of

Mark Anthony Paaka.

[2] I am obliged to sentence you to life imprisonment unless it would be manifestly unjust to do so. There is no suggestion that it would be manifestly unjust to sentence you to life imprisonment for what you have done. So that is the sentence that I will impose on you, life imprisonment. The issue I need to determine today is what minimum period of imprisonment should be imposed as a condition of that sentence.

Three strikes warning

[3] There is one preliminary matter that I have to deal with. When you pleaded guilty in the District Court and a conviction was entered against you, the three strikes warning that should have been given was not given so it is necessary for me to give that warning now. This is a warning of the consequences of another serious violence conviction. 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 and that sentence 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. A written copy of this warning will be given to you to explain these consequences for you under the three strikes law.

The facts

[4] I will summarise the facts. I will do this briefly because the summary of facts has been read to the court and extensive submissions have been made in relation to the facts.

[5] In the week prior to the murder, you had a dispute with Mr Paaka, who was your neighbour, over his puppy coming onto your property, digging up your vegetable garden and otherwise creating a nuisance. You threatened Mr Paaka that if he did not do anything about the dog then you would.

[6] On 30 October 2013, you spoke with Mr Paaka’s partner outside the house. You asked her to tell him that you were going to set traps in your garden so he had better make sure that the dog was tied up.

[7] The next day, Thursday 31 October 2013, Mr Paaka started working on a kennel to keep the puppy in. Sometime before lunch, Mr Paaka and his partner were inside their house when they heard the puppy scream out in pain after you had attacked it with a large piece of wood. When…

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 Cornelius

Details

AGLC: R v Cornelius [2013] NZHC 3435
Case: [2013] NZHC 3435
Decision Date: 16 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Cornelius, the defendant, Selwyn David Cornelius, was sentenced for the murder of Mark Anthony Paaka. Cornelius pleaded guilty to the murder which occurred in an escalation of a dispute over a puppy. The High Court of New Zealand was tasked with determining the appropriate minimum term of imprisonment for Cornelius's life sentence, given the mitigating factors of his early guilty plea and genuine remorse. The court considered whether Section 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002 applied, which mandates a minimum term of 17 years for certain brutal and premeditated murders. The court found that while the murder was indeed brutal and callous, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that it involved calculated or lengthy planning. Consequently, the court decided that a discount was appropriate to reflect Cornelius's early guilty plea and genuine remorse, resulting in a minimum term of 15 years and 6 months of imprisonment.

The court's reasoning highlighted the importance of recognizing mitigating factors such as an early guilty plea and genuine remorse in sentencing, to avoid manifestly unjust outcomes. Despite the severity of the crime, the court balanced these factors against the statutory requirement, leading to a reduced minimum term. The final sentence imposed on Cornelius was life imprisonment with a minimum term of 15 years and 6 months, acknowledging both the gravity of the offence and the mitigating circumstances presented.

Orders