R v Davies - [2017] NZHC 729

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-092-013800 [2017] NZHC 729

THE QUEEN

v

MICHAEL JOSEPH DAVIES (AKA) MICHAEL JOSEPH WAIPOURI

Hearing: 12 April 2017

Appearances:

G Kayes for the Crown
J Munro and D Niven for the Defendant

Sentence:

12 April 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF HINTON J

Counsel/Solicitors:
Kayes Fletcher Walker Ltd, Auckland
John Munro, Barrister, Auckland
David Niven, Barrister, Auckland

R v MICHAEL JOSEPH DAVIES (AKA) MICHAEL JOSEPH WAIPOURI [2017] NZHC 729 [12 April 2017]

[1] Mr Waipouri, you may remain seated until I ask you to stand.

[2] You have been found guilty of kidnapping Lance Murphy and then murdering him. You now appear for sentence.

[3] In respect of the murder conviction, the penalty for murder is life imprisonment, unless it is considered manifestly unjust.

[4] In respect of the count of kidnapping, the maximum penalty is 14 years’

imprisonment.

[5] Before I begin with the formal sentencing process, I would like to acknowledge the presence of the members of Mr Murphy’s family and his friends who are here today. You have lost a dear father, son, brother, friend and relative. There is nothing I can say or do that can change that, but I extend to you the deepest sympathy of the Court.

Facts

[6] I first turn to the facts of this case. I realise it will be difficult for the members of Mr Murphy’s family and his friends to hear the events surrounding Mr Murphy’s death again, but it is unfortunately unavoidable.

[7] Mr Waipouri, you knew Mr Murphy well, and had been his friend for over

30 years. You were the godfather originally of one, and then of two of Mr Murphy’s children. You lived in the same town as Mr Murphy and saw him practically every day.

[8] You were very close to Mr Murphy’s deceased wife. After she died and her mother died, you became convinced that Mr Murphy had killed them both.

[9] In fact the evidence was clear (including medical evidence) that Mr Murphy’s wife died of cancer from which she had suffered for some time and that Mr Murphy had cared for her lovingly and devotedly. It was also clear that Mr Murphy’s mother-in-law was very elderly and had died of serious heart disease. Again, there

was uncontroverted medical evidence to that effect. Again, it was clear that Mr Murphy had helped his mother-in-law as best he could, especially after his wife had died.

[10] It is appropriate to say here that any slur on Mr Murphy’s reputation as a result of your allegations is not justified.

[11] Further, there is no suggestion, even from you, Mr Waipouri that Mr Murphy had ever caused any harm to you, over the lengthy period of your relationship. In fact, he and his wife were described as having always been there for you.

[12] It seems that both you and Mr Murphy were, or had been, involved in drug-taking. One of Mr Murphy’s daughters said that Mr Murphy…

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 Davies

Details

AGLC: R v Davies [2017] NZHC 729
Case: [2017] NZHC 729
Decision Date: 12 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Davies involves the sentencing of Michael Joseph Davies, also known as Michael Joseph Waipouri, who was convicted of the kidnapping and subsequent murder of Lance Murphy. The High Court of New Zealand presided over the sentencing, with Justice Hinton delivering the judgment. The court acknowledged the impact of the crime on the victims' family and friends and outlined the statutory principles that governed the sentencing process. The court considered the brutal and callous nature of the crime, the defendant's criminal history, and the lack of remorse displayed by the defendant. The sentencing principles included holding the defendant accountable, denunciation of the conduct, deterrence, and protection of the community. The court found that the murder was committed after calculated and lengthy planning, in the course of other serious offending, namely kidnapping, and involved a high level of brutality and callousness. The court also found that the defendant's actions involved a high level of brutality and callousness, and that the murder was committed in the course of other serious offending, namely the kidnapping. The court determined a minimum term of 19 years' imprisonment for the murder charge, with an uplift of one year for the defendant's previous convictions, and an eight-year concurrent sentence for the kidnapping charge. The defendant is now subject to the three strikes legislation, which means that any future serious violent offence conviction will result in a sentence of imprisonment without parole or early release.

The final orders of the court were that Michael Joseph Davies be sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Lance Murphy, with a minimum term of 19 years' imprisonment, and to eight years' imprisonment for the kidnapping charge, to be served concurrently with the murder sentence. The defendant is now subject to the three strikes legislation, which means that any future serious violent offence conviction will result in a sentence of imprisonment without parole or early release.

Orders