R v F

Case [2025] NZHC 1894 11 July 2025

Type to search within this case.

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT PROHIBITED BY S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2024-212-68

[2025] NZHC 1894

THE KING

V

F

Hearing: 11 July 2025

Appearances:

R D Smith for Crown

A Stevens KC and D L Henderson for Defendant

Judgment:

11 July 2025

ORAL SENTENCING REMARKS OF OSBORNE J

This is an anonymised version of the judgment for publication

Introduction

[1] [Defendant], you appear at a sentencing hearing today, after a jury found you guilty of manslaughter in relation to the death of Enere Taana-McLaren.

[2] As you are aware, there are essentially three matters that I need to address this morning. First, whether you should be convicted at all—you have instead applied for an order that you be discharged without conviction. Secondly, if you are to be

THE KING v F [2025] NZHC 1894 [11 July 2025]

convicted and sentenced, whether your sentence should be one of imprisonment or of home detention, and for what period. And thirdly, whether there should be a permanent order suppressing your name.

[3] Because of the time it will take me to explain my decision on these various matters, I have decided to tell you right at the start what I have decided. It is this. I will be convicting you and I will be sentencing you. The sentence I will be imposing will be one of imprisonment.

[4] I will now explain why I have come to that decision and exactly what the order will be.

The structure of my judgment

[5] I am first going to summarise the facts relating to your offending and the impact on your victims. I am then going to assess what an appropriate sentence should be, having regard first to the nature of your offending and secondly, to personal circumstances relating to you. In that way I will reach an end sentence of imprisonment. I will then explain why I have decided not to discharge you without conviction and why I am not ordering home detention instead of imprisonment.

[6]Finally, I will come to my decision on your suppression application.

Facts

[7] I am now going to identify the facts relating to the incident in which you killed Enere. The basic facts are outlined in a summary of facts which you have accepted. More detail was provided by the extensive video footage and other evidence which was presented at your trial. To the extent that any issues arise between the Crown and you as to what happened, I will be making my findings as effectively the 13th juror.

[8] On 23 May 2024 you were 13 years old. Enere was 16 years old. There was also a significant difference between the two of you physically as Enere was some 15 centimetres taller and 12 kilograms heavier.

[9] You had taken a bus from home to travel to South Dunedin, with…

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 F

Details

AGLC: R v F [2025] NZHC 1894
Case: [2025] NZHC 1894
Decision Date: 11 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Dunedin Registry, the defendant, referred to as "F", appeared for sentencing after being found guilty of manslaughter in relation to the death of Enere Taana-McLaren. The defendant, who was 13 at the time of the offence, had concealed a knife and used it to stab Enere during an altercation. The Court was required to decide on whether the defendant should be discharged without conviction, the nature and length of the sentence, and whether the defendant's name should be suppressed. The Court held that the defendant was not eligible for discharge without conviction as the consequences of conviction were not disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. The Court also held that while the defendant's youth and mitigating factors warranted a reduced sentence, imprisonment was necessary to hold the defendant accountable, denounce the conduct, and deter similar offences. The Court sentenced the defendant to three years and three months imprisonment and granted an order for the permanent suppression of the defendant's name.

Orders