R v Don - [2021] NZHC 2882

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2020-054-001281

[2021] NZHC 2882

THE QUEEN

v

ALASTAIR MANUA TE ARIANIWA DON

Hearing: 26 October 2021

Appearances:

B Vanderkolk and E Pairman for the Crown P Surridge for the Defendant

Judgment:

26 October 2021

NOTES ON SENTENCING OF GRICE J

Introduction1

[1] Mr Don, you are to be sentenced on one charge of murder to which you have pleaded guilty.2 The plea of guilty was entered at the last moment on the morning of the trial and after the jury had been empanelled.

[2] Since then quite some time has passed. The Court has now received information about your background, which sheds some light on the causes of the incident that led to the death of Roger Chin.

1 Address to the public and remote participants, and acknowledging the victim, whānau and friends was delivered before sentencing submissions and not reported here.
2 The oral decision was delivered on 26 October 2021. These sentencing notes have been edited for grammar, flow and with the addition of footnote references and citations. The substance is unchanged.

R v DON [2021] NZHC 2882 [26 October 2021]

[3] These reports include a s 38 psychological report and a s 27 cultural report. I have also heard from the Crown and the defence. I have heard personally from a number of Mr Chin’s family and a friend.

[4] I will take some time to go through the background issues relevant to your sentence. I will outline the purposes and principles of sentencing. My taking the time to do this is important both for the victim and the family present today, and for you and your whānau.

Background

[5] Mr Chin was your landlord. He had a home in Ōtaki. Both your families knew each other and had known each other for some years. You, at that stage, had nowhere else to stay and Mr Chin took you in during the COVID-19 lockdown. During this time you spent at the house, tensions grew between the people at the house, apparently relating to your drinking habits and similar issues.

[6] On 16 May 2020, Mr Chin had finished work mid-afternoon and he returned home. You and he shared a meal together. You had a loud argument and after that Mr Chin withdrew and he went to his room to sleep. You located a hammer and then went into Mr Chin’s bedroom. While Roger Chin lay in bed you hit him on the head with the hammer.

[7] You then left. You concealed the hammer on your person and then discarded it while you walked down the highway. You hitchhiked to Paraparaumu to visit an uncle, who then returned you to Waikanae. You hitchhiked back to Ōtaki.

[8] Your other flatmate discovered Mr Chin after hearing his laboured breathing. She called emergency services but Mr Chin was pronounced dead at 8.30 pm. He had suffered a fractured skull and…

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 Don

Details

AGLC: R v Don [2021] NZHC 2882
Case: [2021] NZHC 2882
Decision Date: 26 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The Queen v Alastair Manua Te Arianiwa Don involved a guilty plea to one count of murder. The sentencing hearing was held on 26 October 2021. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the presumption of life imprisonment should be displaced and, if not, what minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) should be imposed. The court also needed to consider various factors, including the defendant's background, mental health, and the impact on the victim and their family.

The court found that the presumption of life imprisonment was not manifestly unjust. However, the court determined that imposing a 17-year MPI would be manifestly unjust due to the defendant's mental health issues, background deprivations, and the fact that he entered a guilty plea before the trial began. The court considered the principles and purposes of sentencing, which included accountability, denunciation, protection of the community, and deterrence. The court found an MPI of 10 years appropriate, taking into account the mitigating factors and the impact on the victims.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant, Alastair Manua Te Arianiwa Don, was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years.

Orders