R v Ford - [2020] NZHC 2579

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

2019-063-2735

[2020] NZHC 2579

THE QUEEN

v

WIRELESS FORD

Hearing: 1 October 2020

Counsel:

A J Gordon for Crown W Lawson for Defendant

Sentence:

1 October 2020

SENTENCE OF PAUL DAVISON J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Rotorua

R v FORD [2020] NZHC 2579 [1 October 2020]

[1] Mr Ford, you appear today for sentence having previously pleaded guilty to one charge of murder.

[2] On 22 August 2019 with a murderous intent you attacked and killed your father-in-law, Mr Korekore Putai, with a series of at least 11 violent blows to his head with a detached chainsaw bar. These repeated and brutal blows were inflicted with considerable force and caused scalp lacerations and extensive fracturing to Mr Putai’s skull and the base of his skull. The fractured bone lacerated the underlying brain including vital areas of his mid-brain and brain stem. These non-survivable brain injuries resulted in Mr Putai’s rapid death.

[3] In sentencing you, I will first summarise the background and circumstances of your offending and the contents of the victim impact statements, before turning to address your personal circumstances. I will then refer to the purposes and principles of sentencing and explain the approach I am required to take in sentencing you for the offence of murder. I will then summarise the submissions made by the Crown and by your counsel as regards the sentence they submit should be imposed. Finally, I will outline the sentence I will impose. As part of this, I shall determine whether it would be manifestly unjust to impose a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of at least 17 years without parole.

Facts

[4] In the period prior to Mr Putai’s death you were living in Tokoroa with Mr Putai and his partner, Ms Winikerei. You had previously been in a long-term, somewhat on-and-off relationship with Mr Putai’s daughter Cheval Tautari, and together with her you have five children, aged between 12 months and eight years. Although you were separated from Ms Tautari in August last year you continued to reside at Mr Putai’s house. You were also working for Mr Putai as one of his employees doing spraying and fencing work for a number of farms in the area.

[5] On 22 August 2019, it was raining heavily. The usual routine was for Mr Putai’s workers to be picked up and to assemble at his place around 5.00am to discuss and plan the day’s work. Because of the heavy rain, it was decided that there

not going to be any work that day, but nevertheless a number of the work crew still gathered at Mr Putai’s address.

[6] When one of the worker’s arrived, they noticed that you were already drinking beer. Later in the morning, Ms Tautari also arrived at her father’s house. She assisted her father by preparing his business invoices and delivering them to the various farms,…

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 Ford

Details

AGLC: R v Ford [2020] NZHC 2579
Case: [2020] NZHC 2579
Decision Date: 1 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ford was heard in the High Court of New Zealand Rotorua Registry, where Wireless Ford was sentenced for the murder of Korekore Putai. Ford pleaded guilty to one charge of murder, which involved attacking Putai with a chainsaw bar, inflicting severe blows to his head, resulting in fatal injuries. The court had to decide the appropriate sentence, considering the brutal nature of the crime and Ford's personal circumstances. The legal issues included whether the murder met the criteria for a 17-year minimum imprisonment period under Section 104 of the Sentencing Act and whether imposing such a period would be manifestly unjust given Ford's background and personal factors. The court found that the murder met the criteria for exceptional brutality, warranting a 17-year minimum period. However, considering Ford's troubled upbringing, history of substance abuse, and lack of severe mental illness, the court determined that a 17-year minimum period would be manifestly unjust. Instead, the court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum period of 15 years before eligibility for parole.

Orders