Legal Research
Cases
R v Davis

R v Davis

Case [2018] NZHC 1162 22 May 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2018-019-001080

[2018] NZHC 1162

THE QUEEN

v

DYLYN MITCHELL DAVIS

Hearing: 22 May 2018

Counsel:

R G Douch for Crown

T Sutcliffe & PJA Buckle for Defendant

Sentence:

22 May 2018

SENTENCE OF PAUL DAVISON J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Hamilton

R v DAVIS [2018] NZHC 1162 [22 May 2018]

[1] Dylyn Davis you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to a single charge of murder.1 The offence was committed in the early hours of 4 February 2018 and the victim was your partner, Aroha Kerehoma. I will refer to her as Aroha.

[2] Mr Davis this is your third serious violent offence in terms of the three-strikes regime contained in the Sentencing Act 2002,2 which provides for increasingly serious sentencing consequences relating to the application of maximum sentences and parole provisions in the cases of repeat violent offenders. Mr Davis you were given a first warning and then a final warning when you were convicted of your first and your second-strike offences. Because this third-strike offence is murder, the Court must sentence you to life imprisonment without parole unless satisfied that given your circumstances and the circumstances of the offence it would be manifestly unjust to do so.3

[3] Mr Davis, in the course of sentencing you today I shall begin by setting out the facts of your offending and summarise the victim impact statements, before turning to address your personal circumstances. Next I will set out the purposes and principles of sentencing and the approach I am required to take when sentencing in relation to murder as a third-strike offence. I shall then briefly summarise the submissions of the Crown and the defence, before undertaking the process of determining whether imposing a sentence of life imprisonment without parole upon you would be manifestly unjust.

[4] However, before I proceed any further I commence by acknowledging the presence of members of Aroha’s whānau and close friends who are here in the courtroom today. I have read in the victim impact statements, and have heard from you personally this morning, your heartfelt expressions of grief over the death of your beloved daughter, sister, grand-daughter, niece and cousin, and I have listened carefully to each of you who have bravely read your statements explaining how you feel and how you have reacted to the situation of Aroha’s death. You have lost a dearly loved and clearly vivacious member of your family, who, as you say, had her whole

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 167(a) and 172.
2      Sections 86A–86I.
3      Sentencing Act 2002, s 86E(2).

life ahead of her, and living your own lives without her amongst you will never be the same. To all of you, but particularly to Aroha’s immediate family members, I extend this Court’s sincere sympathy.

[5] To all of Aroha’s whānau and close family here in Court today, it is important to recognise that no sentence that this Court…

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 Davis

Details

AGLC: R v Davis [2018] NZHC 1162
Case: [2018] NZHC 1162
Decision Date: 22 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Davis was sentenced for the murder of Aroha Kerehoma, his partner. Davis had pleaded guilty to the charge of murder. The court had to decide whether a whole-of-life sentence without parole would be manifestly unjust, and if not, whether a 20-year minimum period would be manifestly unjust. The court found that a whole-of-life sentence would be manifestly unjust because the offender was only 26 years old and could be expected to live for another 50 or more years. The court then determined that a 20-year minimum period would not be manifestly unjust. The court sentenced Davis to life imprisonment with a 20-year minimum period before he was eligible to apply for parole. The court found that the purposes and principles of sentencing did not require a whole-of-life sentence in this case. The court considered the offender's criminal history, the circumstances of the murder, and the need for community protection, denunciation, and deterrence. The court also considered the offender's early guilty plea and his limited rehabilitative prospects. The court concluded that a 20-year minimum period was appropriate as a punishment for the offending and as a necessary means of protecting the public from the offender.

Orders