R v Deluney - [2025] NZHC 2644

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2024-085-000325

[2025] NZHC 2644

THE KING

v

JULIA DELUNEY

Appearances: S A H Bishop, N Jamieson and K J Werry for Crown Q Duff for Defendant

Date:

5 September 2025

SENTENCING NOTES OF CHURCHMAN J

Introduction

[1] Julia Deluney, you have been found guilty by a jury of the murder Helen Gregory. I must now sentence you.

[2] The sentence for murder, unless it would be manifestly unjust, is life imprisonment. There has been no submission that such a sentence would be manifestly unjust. The purpose of today’s hearing is therefore to decide the length of the minimum term of imprisonment you should serve before you can apply for parole.1

[3] Before I sentence you, I wish to acknowledge Ms Gregory’s whānau and friends who are in the Courtroom today and those observing by VMR link. The victim impact statements read to the Court indicate the profound consequences and depth of loss your actions have

1 Sentencing Act 2002, ss 102–104.

R v DELUNEY [2025] NZHC 2644 [5 September 2025]

caused to them and your own family members. It must have been very difficult for your family members to have provided statements.

Background facts

[4] I will sentence you based on the facts that I accept as proved, as the Judge who presided over your trial, and based on the essential elements of the charge of murder, which the jury found were proved.

[5] On 24 January 2024, you drove to your mother’s address in Khandallah, arriving shortly after 6.00 pm. At some point during the evening, likely between 8.23 pm and 9.38 pm, you engaged in a violent and prolonged attack on your mother. The precise reasons for that attack remain something that only you know however, it seems that the most likely explanation is that you would have been aware that your actions of defrauding your mother of substantial sums of money would shortly be discovered and this was your way of avoiding that discovery.

[6] We are also left to try and piece together the precise details of how you killed Ms Gregory from the evidence given by the expert witnesses, particularly Dr Melinek the pathologist and Glenys Knight the ESR scene examiner. Their evidence supports a conclusion that you struck Ms Gregory’s head at least 10 times with a blunt instrument, causing a large amount of blood spatter and saturation blood staining. Ms Knight’s evidence was that one of the blows would have been so forceful that the spatter was similar to what might be produced from a gunshot wound.

[7] You struck your mother’s head repeatedly. The evidence of the pathologist was that, sometime during the offending, you must have hit Ms Gregory with a heavy object, akin to a cricket bat. I accept that it is most likely that you attacked Ms Gregory with the heavy vase which had previously sat on a small table in…

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 Deluney

Details

AGLC: R v Deluney [2025] NZHC 2644
Case: [2025] NZHC 2644
Decision Date: 5 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Churchman J sentenced Julia Deluney to life imprisonment for the murder of Helen Gregory, with a minimum non-parole period of 18 years. The primary legal issue was determining the appropriate length of the minimum term of imprisonment before Deluney could apply for parole. The court had to consider the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offence and Deluney's personal circumstances. The court found that the murder involved a high level of brutality and callousness, and the victim was particularly vulnerable due to her age and health. Additionally, there was a breach of trust, as Deluney had defrauded her mother of substantial sums of money. Deluney's lack of remorse and attempts to deceive authorities further aggravated the offending. Although Deluney had a prior criminal history, the court did not consider her age or prior good character as mitigating factors. The court concluded that an 18-year minimum non-parole period was appropriate, considering the extreme brutality of the offence, the breach of trust, and the vulnerability of the victim.

The final orders of the court were that Julia Deluney is sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Helen Gregory. She must serve a minimum term of 18 years' imprisonment before being eligible to apply for parole.

Orders