R v Fawcett - [2014] NZHC 881

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2012-009-005233 [2014] NZHC 881

THE QUEEN

v

MAUHA HUATAHI FAWCETT

Hearing: 1 May 2014

Appearances:

P J Shamy and A Raj for Crown
Defendant Appears in Person
C M Ruane - Amicus

Judgment:

1 May 2014

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

Note: This is a redacted version of the original judgment. Some details have been redacted.

[1] Mauha Fawcett, at trial the jury found you guilty of murdering Ms Ngatai Manning who is also known as Mellory Manning. You now appear for sentence.

[2] Today it falls to me to pass the only sentence that I can pass for murder, and that is one of life imprisonment. The only real issue I need to determine here is the length of the minimum term that you must serve before you are eligible to apply for parole.

[3] Before getting into the detail of my remarks can I please begin by acknowledging the presence of everybody here today. To the family and friends of
the victim in this case Ms Manning who was tragically taken from you at a young

R v FAWCETT [2014] NZHC 881 [1 May 2014]

age, there is nothing I am able to do or say that can ever replace your loss. A dearly loved daughter, sister, friend, relative and partner has been taken from you. There is nothing I can say or do to change that but the sympathy of this Court is with you all.

Facts

[4] I turn to the facts of this case. It is unfortunately necessary during a sentencing process such as this for me to go again into the facts. I realise that this means that you members of Ms Manning’s wider family and her friends will be re- living not only the horror of the murder itself but also the trial. Unfortunately this is unavoidable.

[5] The facts that give rise to the charge here are in a way painfully simple. At about 10:40 p.m. on 18 December the victim Ms Manning was lured into a vehicle off Manchester Street, Christchurch, where she was working as a prostitute. It is said that you Mr Fawcett played a part first, in locating her on Manchester Street where you had a role taxing prostitutes for the Mongrel Mob and secondly, in passing to her a cell phone with a threatening message from a Mongrel Mob colleague, you being a prospect for the Mob.

[6] Ms Manning was then taken to the Mongrel Mob pad situated on Galbraith Avenue, Christchurch where she was sexually violated and possibly raped and then she was subjected to a prolonged, merciless and violent attack by more than one person which ultimately caused her death.

[7] Mr Fawcett, you have described in various statements that you made how Ms Manning was subjected to this ferocious attack by several patched Mongrel Mob members using a number of weapons including a metal pole with a hook (which was a purpose built weapon), a…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Fawcett and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] NZHC 881
Decision Date: 1 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Fawcett, the defendant, Mauha Huatahai Fawcett, was convicted of murdering Ms Ngatai Manning, also known as Mellory Manning. The High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, presided over the case, with Justice Gendall delivering the judgment on May 1, 2014. The primary legal issue the court had to decide was the length of the minimum term that Fawcett must serve before becoming eligible for parole. The court acknowledged the tragic loss suffered by Manning's family and friends and considered the brutal nature of the crime, which involved a premeditated attack by multiple gang members using various weapons.

The court also took into account Fawcett's personal circumstances, including his disadvantaged upbringing, early exposure to drugs, and extensive criminal history. Despite these factors, the court found that the murder involved calculated planning, was committed with a high level of brutality, cruelty, depravity, and callousness, and justified a minimum non-parole period of at least 17 years. The court ultimately decided on a minimum non-parole period of 20 years, taking into account the aggravating factors and the absence of any mitigating factors.

In summary, Mauha Huatahai Fawcett was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Ms Ngatai Manning, with a minimum non-parole period of 20 years. The court emphasized the need to hold Fawcett accountable for his actions and provide proper denunciation and deterrence for the heinous crime committed.

Orders