R v Deluney - [2025] NZHC 2030

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 2030

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 many of whom who are in court today and others who are observing this hearing this hearing by way of VMR link. The victim impact statements that have been read to the Court indicate the profound consequences of your actions and the depth of loss which your actions have caused

1 Sentencing Act 2002, ss 102–104.

R v DELUNEY [2025] NZHC 2030 [5 September 2025]

to those who gave those victim impact statements and to the wider family. I acknowledge the bravery of those who came along and gave their statements in person to the Court today.

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 having been proved and based on the essential elements of the charge of murder, which the jury found established.

[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 the most likely explanation is that you would have been aware that your actions in defrauding your mother of substantial sums of money would shortly be discovered and this was your way of attempting to avoid 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 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 by 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…

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 2030
Case: [2025] NZHC 2030
Decision Date: 5 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The King v Julia Deluney was heard in the High Court of New Zealand at Wellington. Julia Deluney had been found guilty of the murder of Helen Gregory. The court had to determine the length of the minimum term of imprisonment that Deluney should serve before being eligible to apply for parole. The court considered the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case, including the brutality of the crime, the vulnerability of the victim, and Deluney's lack of remorse.

The court found that the murder involved a high level of brutality and callousness, and that Deluney had attempted to conceal her involvement in the crime. The court also found that the victim was particularly vulnerable due to her age, health, and living circumstances. The court rejected Deluney's argument that her age should be considered a mitigating factor in sentencing.

The court imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of 18 years, reflecting the gravity of the offending and the need to hold Deluney accountable for her actions. The court found that an MPI of 18 years was appropriate given the circumstances of the case, and that it would not be manifestly unjust to impose such a sentence. The court sentenced Deluney to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 18 years before being eligible to apply for parole.

Orders