R v Epiha - [2019] NZHC 1075

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2017-009-007163 [2019] NZHC 1075

THE QUEEN

v

KATRINA ROMA EPIHA

Hearing: 16 May 2019

Appearances:

M McClenaghan for the Crown S J Shamy for the Defendant

Judgment:

16 May 2019

SENTENCING REMARKS OF NATION J

[1] I will just begin by thanking those who read their reports and all those who provided written victim impact statements. It must have been very difficult to have to, again, think about everything that you wanted to say, things were very important for you to be able to say but also things that were very important for Ms Epiha to hear. It is right that you have had the opportunity to say those things. It is right that Ms Epiha heard them and it is right that I, as the sentencing Judge, heard them. So, thank you for those statements.

[2] Ms Epiha, on 5 August 2017, you were just short of 19 years of age. At a party, you became angry with Alicia Nathan. With that anger, you obtained a large kitchen knife. You went back to Alicia and confronted her, swinging the knife at her neck.

R v EPIHA [2019] NZHC 1075 [16 May 2019]

You stabbed her twice, once in the upper left arm and once in the left side of her neck. You stabbed her so hard, the blade went into her chest cavity. You killed her.

[3] You know that, as a result of the way you acted when angry, now coming towards the age of 21, you face a life sentence for murder. That will be your penalty but that cannot compare, as no sentence can, to the harm that you did to Alicia and the loss that her family, her whānau have suffered and will always suffer. You have heard the victim impact reports and your counsel has assured me he will also show them to you so that you can read them.

[4] Alicia Nathan was just 32 years old when she died. She should have had a whole life ahead of her, a life in which she could be the mother she wanted to be to her son, who was then just three years old. What you did took away that life. You know you deprived her little boy of the love and care he could expect to have had from a mother. The victim impact reports tell me, and they must have told you, that he was the centre of Alicia’s life.

[5] The victim impact reports must also have told you, as they have told me, how Alicia Nathan was loved by her family. The reports detail just how Alicia’s death has affected them, both physically and emotionally, of the hours of tears, depression and anxiety that your actions have caused them and the way it has made it difficult for them to carry on with the lives they were leading. Because of your actions, they…

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 Epiha

Details

AGLC: R v Epiha [2019] NZHC 1075
Case: [2019] NZHC 1075
Decision Date: 16 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Epiha, the defendant, Katrina Roma Epiha, was convicted of murder and threatening to kill. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand at Christchurch. Epiha stabbed Alicia Nathan at a party, leading to Nathan's death. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for Epiha, considering the mitigating and aggravating factors of the case.

The legal issues the court had to decide included the appropriate sentence for murder, the impact of Epiha's young age and traumatic background on her culpability, and the relevance of her guilty pleas. The court had to balance the severity of the crime with the defendant's personal circumstances and potential for rehabilitation.

The court acknowledged the brutality of the crime and the significant impact on Nathan's family but also considered Epiha's youth and traumatic background. The court accepted that Epiha showed remorse and pleaded guilty, which were mitigating factors. However, the court also emphasised the need for Epiha to take responsibility for her actions and work towards rehabilitation during her imprisonment. The court sentenced Epiha to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 10 years for the murder charge and six months imprisonment for the charge of threatening to kill, with both sentences running concurrently.

In conclusion, the court imposed a life sentence with a minimum term of 10 years for the murder charge and a concurrent six-month sentence for the charge of threatening to kill. The court emphasised the importance of Epiha's rehabilitation and potential for change during her time in prison.

Orders