R v Fane
[2021] NZHC 1961
•30 July 2021 at Rotorua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE
CRI 2020-009-001480
[2021] NZHC 1961
THE QUEEN v
SAMUEL DEANE FANE AND
SARAH LEE FAIRLANE HINERANA TAREI
Hearing: 03 May – 06 May 2021
10 May – 14 May 2021
17 May – 18 May 2021
20 May – 21 May 2021Counsel:
A J Pollett and J M Sutton for the Crown S J Lance and S N B Wimsett for Mr Fane D J Dufty for Ms Tarei
Sentencing
30 July 2021 at Rotorua
SENTENCING NOTES OF VAN BOHEMEN J
Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor (Pollett Legal Limited) Tauranga S J Lance, Barrister, Auckland
D J Dufty, Barrister, Auckland
S N B Wimsett, Barrister, Auckland
R v FANE & TAREI (Sentencing Notes) [2021] NZHC 1961 [30 July 2021]
Introduction
[1] Samuel Fane and Sarah Lee Tarei, on 24 May 2021, a jury in Tauranga found you, Samuel Fane, guilty of the murder of Paul Lasslett and Nicholas Littlewood and you, Sarah Lee Tarei, guilty of being an accessory after the fact to those murders. I entered convictions accordingly and gave you, Mr Fane, a first strike warning.
[2] My task today is to sentence you both. So that you and others in Court understand what is to happen this morning, I will explain the process I will follow.
(a)First, I will outline the circumstances of your offending and will discuss some of the evidence at the trial;
(b)Secondly, I will make findings about Samuel’s role in the murders of Paul Lasslett and Nicholas Littlewood and about Sarah Lee’s role in assisting Samuel to avoid arrest after the murders;
(c)Thirdly, I will consider your personal circumstances relevant to the sentences;
(d)Fourthly, I will explain the approach to setting the sentences and discuss the requirements of the Sentencing Act 2002 as they apply in this case;
(e)Finally, I will impose the sentences I consider appropriate.
The circumstances of your offending
[3] On the evening of 9 February 2020, Anthony Fane, Samuel Fane’s older brother, killed his partner, Jessie-Lee Booth, while their two young children were asleep at their home at Lynwood Place in Tauranga. Anthony believed Jessie-Lee had been having an affair with Paul Lasslett, the owner of a property at 40A Ormsby Lane, Omanawa, where Anthony and Jessie-Lee had previously lived.
[4] Anthony Fane killed Jessie-Lee with across bow, left her body on the floor of their house, put their two children into his car and drove to his mother’s house in Auckland, arriving in the early hours of 10 February 2020. He left the children in the
care of his mother, Donna Fane, and spent much of that day in the company of his brothers, Jesse Fane and Samuel. Anthony told Jesse that he intended to kill Paul Lasslett. He also told Jesse that he had intended to go alone but that Samuel insisted on coming with him.
[5] On 11 February 2020, Anthony and Samuel drove from Auckland to Tauranga in a Ford Territory registered in the name of Sarah Lee but which was usually used by Samuel. Anthony had with him a cut-down .22 rifle. Before they left, Samuel contacted a cousin at Waitakaruru and arranged for bullets to be left in a letterbox. In the event, the brothers did not collect the bullets but at some point in the afternoon, they acquired a cut-down pump action shot gun after trying, unsuccessfully, to obtain a firearm from a contact of Anthony.
[6] Samuel and Anthony spent the day together, first driving down to Tauranga and then in the environs of the city. Either that day or the previous day, Anthony told Samuel about his suspicions about Jessie-Lee and how he believed he had figured out what she had been doing. He also told Samuel that he had already killed Jessie-Lee. Whether it was that information or something else that Anthony told him, Samuel later told another brother, Cody Fane, that he knew there was no point in trying to talk Anthony out of what he was planning to do.
[7] Samuel and Sarah Lee exchanged various text messages over the course of the day, including just before the brothers drove to Paul Lasslett’s house at Ormsby Lane and just after they left that address.
[8] At approximately 7.40 pm on 11 February 2020, Anthony and Samuel arrived at 40A Ormsby Lane and walked to the glass sliding door of the converted shed in which Paul Lasslett lived. They shot Paul Lasslett and Nicholas Littlewood, who happened to be present at the time. Paul Lasslett was shot in the side of the head by buckshot from one shotgun shell and in the back by a round from the .22 which entered his chest. Nicholas Littlewood was shot by buckshot from two shotgun shells. The whole episode was over in minutes.
[9] Anthony and Samuel Fane drove away, firing shots from the .22 rifle towards Daniel De Martin, who had been working at the property with Nicholas Littlewood and had seen the shootings from a distance. Daniel De Martin sought assistance from a neighbour and from emergency services, but Paul Lasslett and Nicholas Littlewood died at the scene.
[10] Anthony and Samuel Fane drove to their cousin’s house at Waitakaruru where Samuel had arranged to meet Sarah Lee. They left the Ford Territory at that property, under a tarpaulin with the licence plates removed.
[11] Samuel and Sarah Lee drove back to Auckland and then to Hamilton in the early hours of 12 February 2020, with their daughter, in Sarah Lee’s silver Toyota Allion. Samuel took with him the shotgun used at the Ormsby Lane shootings. The persons who had given the gun to the Fane brothers did not want it back. Samuel, Sarah Lee and their daughter slept at the home of Sarah Lee’s brother.
[12] Meanwhile, Anthony Fane rode back to Auckland on a motorcycle borrowed from his cousin. He spoke the next morning to his brother, Jesse, and to his mother about what had happened at Ormsby Lane and what he might do next.
[13] On 12 February 2020, Samuel, Sarah Lee and their daughter drove from Hamilton to Wellington and booked tickets on the Bluebridge ferry to Picton. While driving around Wellington and then waiting for the ferry, Samuel had a telephone conversation with Cody, who was then resident at South Auckland prison. The call lasted for almost two hours. It was recorded. Samuel joined Anthony to the call for a period.
[14] The brothers discussed, in poorly disguised terms, what had happened at Ormsby Lane and what was going to happen next. Anthony talked about what he had done, how he had felt after he had killed Paul Lasslett, and how he would be remembered. He said he would not allow the Police to arrest him but would go out “in a blaze of glory.” Samuel spoke of how he intended to change his appearance when he reached his destination.
[15] Before Anthony joined the call and while Sarah Lee and their daughter were in the car, Samuel told Cody that soon people would learn about what he called “the first part of the story,” namely that Anthony had killed Jessie-Lee Booth and why. He talked about what happened as being “Judgement Day.’ He also told Cody about his conversations with Sarah Lee on their trip south about their family and about whether there was a genetic explanation for what had happened. He also said Sarah Lee had come up with some plans for crossing Cook Strait and where to stay.
[16] After Anthony left the call, Samuel told Cody about how happy Anthony had been after the killings, how he had been determined to support his brother (to have his back “100”) and how he could not let Anthony go alone to finish what he had started.
[17] While talking to Cody, Samuel discussed how he would get the shotgun on the ferry if they could not get a booking for the car. Sarah Lee came back to the car from the ferry terminal while that conversation was in progress and told Samuel he could take a backpack on to the ferry and that she had not seen a metal detector in the terminal.
[18] After crossing Cook Strait on the night of 12 February 2020 and then driving south, Samuel, Sarah Lee and their daughter arrived at the house of another brother of Sarah Lee at New Brighton in Christchurch on the morning of 13 February 2020. Later that day, Sarah Lee went to the supermarket where she bought a number of items, including a razor.
[19] On 13 February 2020, after a tipoff from Jesse Fane, who was concerned about what else Anthony might do, Anthony was killed near Tauranga in an encounter with the Police. The .22 rifle used at the Ormsby Lane shootings was found in Anthony’s car.
[20] On 14 February 2020, Jesse Fane drove to Tauranga and made a statement to the Police. As a result of that statement, the police went to the Lynwood Road property and found Jessie-Lee Booth’s body.
[21] Also, on 14 February 2020, Police in Christchurch arrested Samuel who had shaved his head. The shot gun used at the Ormsby Lane shootings was found in boot of Sarah Lee’s car.
Samuel Fane’s role in the murders
[22] The Crown case was that Samuel was a principal offender in both murders and used the shot-gun to shoot both Nicholas Littlewood and Paul Lasslett. The defence case is that Anthony fired all the fatal shots, as well as one round of buckshot that hit the back wall of the shed, and that Samuel was essentially a bystander.
[23] While there is no direct evidence of who fired the weapons, I am sure from the evidence of what had happened before the brothers got to Ormsby Avenue, how they spoke about events afterwards on the telephone call and from what Anthony did after that call, that Anthony was the principal offender and used both the shotgun and the
.22 to kill Paul Lasslett and Nicholas Littlewood. It was Anthony’s partner who, he believed, had cheated on him. Anthony had killed Jessie-Lee, and he was intent on killing Jesse-Lee’s alleged lover. It was Anthony’s mission and Anthony was the one who carried it out – as he said on the telephone call and to his brother, Jesse, and his mother.
[24] I accept that Samuel was there essentially to support his brother out of misplaced and foolish loyalty. But I am sure that Samuel knew what Anthony intended to do before the brothers left for Tauranga and that his knowledge of that intention was reinforced when Anthony told him before they got to Ormsby Lane that he had already killed Jessie-Lee.
[25] It follows that Samuel is guilty as a party to the murder of Paul Lasslett. I find that he knew Anthony intended to kill Paul Lasslett. He intentionally assisted Anthony in carrying out the murder by providing and, at times, driving the car in which the brothers travelled from Auckland to Tauranga, by arranging for bullets from their cousin in Waitakaruru, by going with him to an associate of Anthony to attempt to procure another gun and by being with him at the killings in order to “have his back.”
[26] It is accepted that the brothers did not know Nicholas Littlewood would be present at Ormsby Lane.
[27] For that reason, and further to my finding that Anthony fired all the fatal shots, Samuel is guilty of the murder of Nicholas Littlewood as a party. I find that:
(a)Anthony and Samuel had formed a common purpose to shoot and kill Paul Lasslett and to participate and help each other to achieve that common purpose;
(b)Nicholas Littlewood was killed in the pursuit of that common purpose; and
(c)Samuel knew that it was likely that anyone with Paul Lasslett would be killed when Anthony killed Paul Lasslett.
Sarah Lee’s role in assisting Samuel avoid arrest
[28] Sarah Lee denied and still denies any knowledge that Anthony intended to kill Paul Lasslett when he and Samuel drove down to Tauranga. She also denied and still denies any knowledge that the murders had taken place when she met Samuel and Anthony at Waitakaruru and left the Ford Territory under a tarpaulin with its licence plates removed, when she and Samuel drove back to Auckland and when she, Samuel and their daughter drove from Auckland to Wellington, crossed Cook Strait and then drove to Christchurch where she bought a razor before Samuel shaved off his hair.
[29] That position is not credible and is contradicted by the evidence of Sarah Lee’s text messages with Samuel on the day of the murders, by the assistance she provided to Samuel that evening and by the phone call between the three brothers for which Sarah was present much of the time and which refers to what Sarah and Samuel discussed on their journey south, and to how they were to get the shotgun onto the ferry.
[30] I find that Sarah Lee knew Samuel had been a party to the murders and assisted Samuel to avoid arrest by leaving Auckland within minutes of being contacted by
Samuel after the murders and travelling to Waitakaruru to pick him up, by assisting Samuel to travel to Christchurch, including driving him, arranging accommodation with her family and booking ferry tickets, and by a purchasing a razor for Samuel to use to change his appearance.
Personal circumstances
[31] I now briefly state the personal circumstances relevant to your offending, drawing on pre-sentence reports prepared by the Department of Corrections and reports prepared under s 27 of the Sentencing Act on your personal, whanau and cultural backgrounds.
[32] Mr Fane, you are 26 years old. You are the youngest of four boys born to your mother, Donna Fane, and your father, Glen Fane. You identify as Māori through your mother, and whakapapa to Te Arawa. However, your parents separated when you were five and you spent a good part of your formative years with one or other of your parents, sometimes in Australia, and often separated from your brothers.
[33] As a consequence, you have been disconnected from your Māori identity and culture. You do not have a good knowledge of tikanga, and you are not a fluent speaker of Te Reo. You also left school early and with no formal qualifications.
[34] You began your relationship with Sarah Lee when you were 16. Your daughter was born when you were 20.
[35] When you were 21, you started working in the roofing industry with Anthony who was some eight years older than you. You formed a strong bond with him. Unfortunately, your use of methamphetamine also increased at the same time, to the point you were both addicted. You also developed strong links with the Manga Kahu Rotorua chapter and regarded them as your family when your brothers were not around.
[36] The writer of the s 27 report says your offending is the result of your beginnings in life, being set on a trajectory early in life that almost ensured a life of crime, gangs
and drugs. That assessment is belied, however, by the fact that you have no prior history of convictions or involvement with the criminal justice system.
[37] I consider a more accurate assessment is that because of your history, you developed a strong attachment to Anthony in recent years and regarded it as your responsibility to support him, even if what he was intending to do made no sense at all. Sadly, you elevated loyalty above common sense. Had you had a firmer base in your Māori heritage and in the wider community, you might have been more capable of standing aside from what Anthony was set on doing. To that extent, I accept that cultural factors played a part in your offending.
[38] The Corrections report writer says you have displayed little insight into or remorse for your offending and have been unable to connect your actions with respect to obtaining weapons and ammunition to the shooting of the two victims. You have continued to maintain that you had no knowledge of Anthony’s intentions. For the reasons already stated, I reject that.
[39] Ms Tarei, you are 25 years old. You were born and raised in Te Teko. You have four siblings: two older brothers and a younger sister and brother. You identify as Māori through your father. You grew up connected to your identity and culture, as well as to gang culture. You have some understanding of tikanga but are not a fluent speaker of Te Reo.
[40] You started living with Samuel in 2012. Later that year, you and he moved in with Anthony and Jessie-Lee Booth in a house in Tauranga. You stayed in that house when Anthony and Jessie-Lee moved to Ormsby Lane. In late 2019, you and Samuel moved to Papakura and had the chance to set up our own home. However, within a few months, the killings of Paul Lasslett and Nicholas Littlewood occurred.
[41] The s 27 report writer says your devotion to Samuel is at the heart of the nexus to your offending. She also says that societal, cultural and structural drivers may be deemed as contributing to your offending. The report writer also talks about the negative impact on your daughter of your arrest, Samuel’s arrest and Samuel’s absence
since then. She assessed that the impact on your daughter will continue to be severe because your daughter is close to Samuel and he will be absent for a long time.
[42] You express remorse for the victims but insist that you had no knowledge of what Anthony and Samuel had done. You told the Corrections report writer that you had no idea about the murders after they had happened because Samuel did not mention them on the whole journey down to Christchurch.
[43]For the reasons already given, I do not accept that denial of knowledge.
The victim impact statements
[44] We have heard the victim impact statements earlier today. I again pay tribute to all of you for your courage and express my sorrow for your loss and pain.
The approach to setting the sentences
[45] Mr Fane and Ms Tarei, I must impose on you sentences that hold you accountable for the harm you have caused to Paul Lasslett and Nicholas Littlewood and to the community, that promotes in you a sense of responsibility for that harm, that denounces your conduct, that deters you and others from future similar offending and that assists in your rehabilitation.1 I must also take into account the gravity of your offending, including the degree of your culpability, the seriousness of your offending in comparison with other types of offending, and the general desirability of consistency with appropriate sentencing levels.2 I must also impose on you the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances.3
[46] I must take into account any personal circumstances that would mean that a sentence that would otherwise be appropriate would be disproportionately severe in this particular instance.4 I must also take into account your personal, family and cultural background in imposing a sentence that has a rehabilitative purpose.5
1 Sentencing Act 2002, ss 7(1)(a), (b), (e), (f) and (h).
2 Sections 8(a), (b) and (e).
3 Section 8(g).
4 Section 8(h).
5 Section 8(i).
[47] Mr Fane, because you have been found guilty of murder, I am required to impose a sentence of life imprisonment unless that would be manifestly unjust.6 There is no suggestion in the present case that the imposition of a life sentence would be manifestly unjust. That must, therefore, be the sentence of the Court.
[48] The real issue for the Court in relation to your sentence, Mr Fane, is the minimum term of imprisonment you will be required to serve before you may apply for parole. But for the circumstances I will discuss shortly, the minimum term of imprisonment must be at least 10 years or such longer term as is necessary to hold you accountable for what you have done to the victims and the community, to denounce your conduct, deter you and others from similar offending in the future and to protect the community.7
[49] However, s 104 of the Sentencing Act provides that, in certain circumstances, the Court must impose a minimum term of imprisonment of not less than 17 years unless the Court is satisfied that it would be manifestly unjust to do so.8 Counsel agree that that threshold is reached in the present case for three reasons:
(a)You have been convicted of two charges of murder;9
(b)The murders involved the unlawful entry into or unlawful presence in a dwelling house;10 and
(c)The murders were committed with a high degree of brutality and callousness.11
Setting the sentences
[50]I begin with your sentence, Mr Fane.
6 Section 102(1).
7 Section 103(2).
8 Section 104(1).
9 Section 104(1)(h).
10 Section 104(1)(c).
11 Section 104(1)(e).
[51] As I have already held, s 104 of the Sentencing Act applies so the presumption is that a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years must be imposed unless I am satisfied that would be manifestly unjust.
[52] Crown counsel, Ms Pollett, submits that you and Anthony were equally culpable for the murders and that the murders had the following aggravating features: premeditation, unlawful presence in a dwelling, use of weapons, the extent of the loss and harm caused and the vulnerability of the victims. For these reasons, Ms Pollett submits that a minimum period of imprisonment of 22 years is appropriate.
[53] Your counsel, Mr Lance, says that Anthony bore a much greater responsibility for the murders and that you were a party to the murders on the bases I have found. Mr Lance accepts that the unlawful presence in a dwelling, the use of a weapon, the extent of the loss and harm and the vulnerability of the victims were aggravating features. However, he disputes premeditation.
[54] Mr Lance says that it is not accepted that you and Anthony planned to murder Paul Lasslet and anyone who was present with him. He says you agreed to help Anthony confront Paul Lasslett and were not aware that Anthony planned to kill him. He says a lack of planning was evident in your failure to take basic steps to disguise your involvement in the murders. Mr Lance submits that a minimum period of 15 years would be appropriate and refers to decisions which, he says, support that submission.
[55] For the reasons already given, I agree with Mr Lance that Anthony bore primary responsibility for the murders and that your role was essentially that of a party. For that reason, your level of culpability is lower than that of Anthony. I do not agree, however, that there was an absence of premeditation. Nor do I consider that the decisions referred to by Mr Lance support a minimum period of imprisonment of 15 years in this case.
[56] Just because a plan was a bad plan or was badly executed does not mean the absence of a plan. It was foolish of you and Anthony to travel down to Tauranga in a vehicle registered to Sarah Lee, not to disguise yourselves and not to avoid cameras
when you stopped at gas stations. It was also foolish for you to have communicated with Sarah Lee using your own phones. But that does not mean there was no plan.
[57] I am satisfied that from the day before you and Anthony left for Tauranga in the Ford Territory, Anthony planned to kill Paul Lasslett as he had told your brother, Jesse. You knew that was his intention, you went with him as he went to execute that plan and you helped him to execute the plan. I accept that your principal purpose was to protect your troubled older brother and that you might have hoped to talk him out of that plan. But at some point, as you said to Cody on the phone call, you realised you could not do that, and you carried on with Anthony in executing the plan anyway. You probably consider that to have been justified for reasons of loyalty. If so, it was a loyalty that took no account of the intended and incidental victims or the many people whose lives were affected by what you helped happen.
[58] I consider your culpability on the facts of this case to be worse than that in one of the decisions to which Mr Lance refers and to be at least equivalent to the other where a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years was imposed.
[59] In one case,12 two men were murdered because the first victim was suspected of stealing methamphetamine and the second victim was killed just because he had been present. One of the defendants was convicted as a party to the manslaughter of the first victim and the murder of the second. The Judge accepted that a minimum period of imprisonment of 14 years would be appropriate, given the relative youth of the offender (aged 27), the fear on his part in going along with the orders from senior members of the gang, his acknowledgement of the offending (offering to plead guilty to manslaughter to both deaths prior to trial) and the fact that he did not personally inflict the fatal wounds.
[60] In your case, you are of an equivalent age, you did not personally inflict the fatal wounds and, as I was informed this morning, you offered to plead guilty to manslaughter. However, you were not acting under duress and we are dealing here with two convictions for murder.
12 R v Hura [2018] NZHC 3347.
[61] In the other case,13 a defendant was charged as a party to murder and party to attempted murder, after he assisted in driving the principal offender down the road to where the victims had run and assisted in pursuing the victims after one shot had already been fired. The offending occurred in the context of a methamphetamine transaction that went wrong, and the Judge accepted there was little premeditation. A minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years was found to be appropriate, and was upheld by the Court of Appeal,14 even though the defendant had not been directly involved in the violence.
[62] In your case, we have premeditation, as I have found; you drove and accompanied Anthony on a long road trip knowing he intended to kill Paul Lasslett; and you actively assisted him in trying to obtain ammunition and guns for the purpose.
[63]As stated by the Court of Appeal in Malik v R:15
A lesser minimum period would be warranted where the judge decides as a matter of overall impression that the case falls outside the legislative policy that certain murders are sufficiently serious to warrant at least that minimum period. The full range of sentencing criteria in ss 7 to 9 of the Sentencing Act may inform that overall impression, but because the legislative policy in s 104 must be respected, powerful mitigating factors may be needed to displace the 17 year presumption.
[64] As noted in that decision, while cases in which a 17-year minimum would be manifestly unjust need not be rare, they must be exceptional.16 While the matter is always one of “sound sentencing judgment,”17 the Court of Appeal has indicated that when a qualifying factor under s 104 has only “peripheral significance” or the culpability attaching to the offence is relatively low having regard to the range of cases caught by s 104, then the circumstances of the offender may make the sentence manifestly unjust.18
[65] I am satisfied that in this case the qualifying factors are not of peripheral significance and that your culpability is not relatively low having regard to the range
13 R v Tapaevalu [2019] NZHC 1867.
14 Tufui v R [2020] NZCA 568.
15 Malik v R [2015] NZCA 597 at [32].
16 R v Williams 2 NZLR 506 (CA) at [63] and [67], Malik v R, above n 16, at [30].
17 R v Williams, above n 16, at [68].
18 At [68].
of cases caught by s 104. Indeed, I consider your situation to be similar to that described by Lang J in the second of the decisions to which Mr Lance refers. Lang J said:19
… standing back and looking at the matter as a matter of overall impression, I have no doubt that this type of situation falls squarely within the category of offending for which Parliament intended s 104 to apply. I would therefore view the imposition of a minimum term of 17 years imprisonment as not amounting to a manifest injustice on this case.
[66] I am satisfied too that a minimum period of imprisonment of at least 17 years is both appropriate and is not manifestly unjust.
[67] I do not consider a minimum period of imprisonment of 22 years to be appropriate. As I have already held, I do not consider your culpability is as great as Ms Pollett suggests. I also consider your culpability to be significantly less than the defendants in the various cases to which Ms Pollett refers in support of her submission where minimum periods of more than 18 years’ imprisonment were imposed.20
[68] My overall impression, therefore, is that a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years is appropriate in your case, bearing in mind that any increase over that number would be offset by the discounts for personal and cultural factors which I consider would be otherwise appropriate in your circumstances.
[69]I come now to you, Ms Tarei.
[70]The most important decision in your case is the starting point for your sentence.
[71] Ms Pollett submits that a starting point in the range of three to four years’ imprisonment is warranted. Ms Pollett relies on the Court of Appeal’s observation that interference with the course of justice by assisting those who commit homicide to
19 R v Tapaevalu, above n 13, at [50].
20 R v Reihana HC Rotorua CRI 2005-070-7328, 29 June 2007, and decisions discussed therein.
escape arrest calls for a deterrent sentence.21 She points to the comprehensive analysis of similar cases in R v Boskill,22 and to R v Duff,23 in which Lang J observed:24
In any case involving assistance given to a potential offender after a homicide has taken place, issues of deterrence and denunciation arise. People must know that if they harbour or assist fugitives they are likely to be dealt with severely if they are caught.
[72] Your counsel, Mr Dufty, submits that an appropriate starting point is 18 months’ imprisonment. He submits, also by reference to Boskill, that only the most serious cases have justified a starting point of three years’ imprisonment. He submits that your case is most analogous to those in Duff, R v Everitt,25 R v Te Tomo,26 and R v Moala.27 He says that all those decisions indicate that a starting point of 18 months for accessory after the fact to murder is appropriate.
[73] Mr Dufty submits that the logical inference from the evidence is that you became aware that Mr Fane has been involved in the murder somewhere during the journey from Auckland to Christchurch. He also says that the travel to Christchurch was spontaneous rather than planned or premeditated as shown by the low level of organisation in advance. He submits that, as in Duff, Everitt, and Te Tomo and Moala, this was a case where a partner or family member assisted the offender in evading police.
[74] I agree with Mr Dufty that only the most serious cases have justified a starting point of three years’ imprisonment and I do not consider that your case is of that character.
[75] As far as I have been able to ascertain, a starting point of three years’ imprisonment has been adopted only in cases where the defendant has been actively involved in disposing of the body (or bodies) and cleaning up the murder scene.28 Your actions do not approach that level of offending.
21 R v Raroa (1987) 2 CRNZ 596 (CA).
22 R v Boskill [2015] NZHC 286.
23 R v Duff HC Rotorua CRI-2009-063-6473, 9 December 2010.
24 At [8].
25 R v Everitt HC Whangarei CRI 2006-088-3601, 28 February 2007.
26 R v Te Tomo [2012] NZHC 71.
27 R v Moala HC Auckland CRI 2006-092-000461, 12 December 2007.
28 See R v Raroa [1987] 2 NZLR 486 and R v Vaux-Phillips [2012] NZHC 1119.
[76] At the same time, for the reasons already given, I do not accept that you only became aware of the murders as you drove south from Auckland or that that trip was occasional or accidental. It is plain from the evidence that you were in contact with Samuel before the murders, that you left to pick him up as soon as you heard from him after the murders, and that you worked with him to get the two of you and your daughter out of Auckland as quickly as you could. I agree with Ms Pollett that there was an element of premeditation in your actions, even if they were driven by a desire to support and protect your partner.
[77] For these reasons, I consider your offending to be more serious than that in Duff, where the defendant became involved after she found out that her brother had been involved in killing a young person. On the other hand, it is of a similar order to that in Everitt and Te Tomo and not as serious as in Moala where the defendant tried to dispose of a weapon.
[78] For those reasons and having regard to the general desirability of consistency with appropriate sentencing levels as stated in s 8 of the Sentencing Act, I consider that a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment is appropriate. I deduct two months to take account of your previous good character and the needs of your child. I do not consider any greater deduction is warranted, given your refusal to admit your obvious involvement in assisting Mr Fane to avoid arrest and, in my view, a lack of any genuine remorse.
[79] In any event, this results in a sentence of less than two years’ imprisonment and means you are eligible for home determination as recommended in the Corrections’ report. I consider that result to be appropriate in the interests, principally, of your daughter. Enough children’s lives have been blighted by the behaviours of adults that led to today’s sentencings.
Result
[80]Mr Fane and Ms Tarei, please stand.
[81] Samuel Fane, for the murder of Paul Lasslett and Nicholas Littlewood, I sentence you to life imprisonment. In accordance with s 104 of the Sentencing Act, I impose a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years.
[82] Sarah Lee Tarei, for assisting Samuel Fane to avoid arrest for the murder of Paul Lasslett and Nicholas Littlewood, I sentence you to home detention for a period of 9 months.
[83] The sentence address and the conditions of home detention are those recommended in the Provision of Advice to Courts report dated 13 July 2021, except that I delete the condition and special condition requiring that you not to communicate or associate with Samuel without the prior written permission of a probation officer.
[84]Mr Fane and Ms Tarei, please stand down.
G J van Bohemen J
7
0