Legal Research
Cases
R v D and P

R v D and P

Case [2024] NZHC 2118 31 July 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

INTERIM ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANTS UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. FACT OF FRATERNAL RELATIONSHIP MAY BE PUBLISHED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-244-18

[2024] NZHC 2118

THE KING

v

D AND P

Hearing: 31 July 2024

Appearances:

B D Tantrum and M C M Nash for Crown M Taylor-Cyphers and O R Hintze for D J W Clearwater and T J Conder for P

Sentence:

31 July 2024

SENTENCING REMARKS OF JOHNSTONE J

Solicitors: MC, Auckland

R v D AND P [2024] NZHC 2118 [31 July 2024]

[1] D and P, I will now sentence you for the murder of Joshuah Tasi. It will take me some time to let you and the other people here in court know the reasons for the sentences I have decided to impose. At the end of this hearing, when I am about to impose those sentences, I will ask you to stand.

[2] As brothers, you share the same family names. This morning, D and P, I am going to speak to you using your given names. And, members of Mr Tasi’s family and friends, I will refer to him as Joshuah.

[3] I do not intend to be disrespectful. And I do not intend to treat any one of you like children. But Joshuah was, and you are, young. I do want to recognise the human impact of today’s hearing, on all concerned. And, as well as making it a little easier to be clear who I am talking about, using given names may help to do that.

[4]I will start by describing what you did, and its devastating effect.

Offending

[5] Around 7 pm on 3 March last year [2023], D, you drove your BMW sedan along Hayman Place, towards its intersection with Beach Haven Road on Auckland's North Shore. You were 17 years old. You stopped the car a few metres short of the intersection to speak with your girlfriend's mother, who was on the footpath to the left. P, you were sitting in the front passenger seat. You were 14. An even younger cousin was sitting in the back.

[6] Soon after, Joshuah drove his father’s minivan up behind you. He had borrowed it to go for a swim. There is no suggestion in the evidence that you knew Joshuah, or had any existing reason to be upset with him. Joshuah was a young man, driving in suburban Auckland on a Friday evening in late summer, with his windows down and his music on.

[7] Finding his way out of Hayman Place blocked by your BMW, Joshuah sounded his horn. You did not respond. He sounded his horn again, and again your BMW did not move. Joshuah drove out and around it, turning left onto Beach Haven Road. It is likely he made a comment out his passenger window as he drove around you.

[8] Immediately, D,…

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 D and P

Details

AGLC: R v D and P [2024] NZHC 2118
Case: [2024] NZHC 2118
Decision Date: 31 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v D and P involved the sentencing of two brothers for the murder of Joshuah Tasi. The defendants, D and P, were found guilty of murder following a joint knife attack on Mr Tasi, which occurred after D blocked Mr Tasi's path with his vehicle. The attack resulted in Mr Tasi's death from a stab wound inflicted by D. The legal issues before the court included whether a sentence of life imprisonment for the defendants would be manifestly unjust and, if not, determining the appropriate determinate sentence. The court assessed the gravity of the offending and the personal circumstances of the defendants, concluding that a life sentence would be manifestly unjust due to the defendants' young ages and troubled backgrounds, which included exposure to violence and poor role-modeling. The court imposed determinate sentences of 20 years and 10 months for D and 14 years and five months for P, with minimum periods of imprisonment of 10 years and six years, respectively.

Johnstone J began by outlining the circumstances of the offence and its impact on the victim's family. The court noted the presumption of life imprisonment for murder but considered whether such a sentence would be manifestly unjust for the defendants due to their youth and backgrounds. The Crown argued against manifest injustice, pointing to the severity of the crime and the lack of premeditation. However, the court found that the defendants' actions were impulsive and poorly thought out, typical of young offenders. The court also considered the defendants' upbringings, marked by exposure to gang violence and drugs, and concluded that these circumstances had a significant impact on their offending.

The court assessed starting points for the defendants' sentences based on the gravity of the offending and their respective culpability. For D, the court set a starting point of 38 years, reflecting the severity of the attack, and for P, a starting point of 32 years, acknowledging P's significant role in the coordinated attack. After applying deductions for the defendants' personal circumstances, including their youth and potential for rehabilitation, the court determined the final sentences. The court also imposed minimum periods of imprisonment to ensure accountability and deterrence.

Orders