R v Hepana - [2014] NZHC 504

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-044-5796 [2014] NZHC 504

THE QUEEN

v

GENE HEPANA

Hearing: 18 March 2014

Appearances: N Walker and B J Thompson for Crown
M Levett for Prisoner

Sentence: 18 March 2014

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v HEPANA [2014] NZHC 504 [18 March 2014]

[1] Mr Hepana, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to a charge of murdering Jasmine Cooper. The only possible sentence that can be imposed on you is one of life imprisonment, and I now impose that sentence. The real issue today is to determine the length of minimum term of imprisonment that the Court should impose upon you.

[2] Before considering that issue, I wish to acknowledge immediately the presence in Court today of the family, whanau and friends of Ms Cooper. Several of you have travelled from some distance away to be here today. It is an important day for you, because so far as the legal system is concerned, this is the end of the process. I know, however, from the heartfelt yet measured victim impact statements that I have read that this is far from the end of the road in terms of you all coming to terms with your loss. You were robbed at a young age of a treasured, loved member of your family. That loss has left a huge hole in all of your lives that I know you are all struggling to come to terms with.

[3] I appreciate the measured way in which you prepared your victim impact statements and also, in two cases, have read them to the Court today. They help to give the Court some understanding of the extent to which offending like this can wreak havoc on the lives of those who are left behind. The Court’s sympathy is obviously with you. I recognise that nothing I say or do today can bring back the loved member of your family that was Jasmine Cooper. Nothing I can say or do can really help to sooth the sense of loss and bereavement that you suffer, but nevertheless the Court’s sympathies are with you.

The facts

[4] The first stage of the sentencing exercise is to set out the factual basis on which you, Mr Hepana, fall to be sentenced. These are contained in the summary of facts, to which you take no exception.

[5] You and Ms Cooper had been in a relationship and living together since about July 2013. This came to an end in or about November 2013, when an argument ensued. This ended in a degree of violence in which I am told you placed your hands around her neck. She then remained living in the house in which you had both been

living and you left to live elsewhere. During the period between November and December, you continued to send text messages to her and, I infer, visit her at her address on occasion. This prompted her to serve 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.

Continue reading R v Hepana

Details

AGLC: R v Hepana [2014] NZHC 504
Case: [2014] NZHC 504
Decision Date: 18 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of The Queen v Gene Hepana was heard and determined on 18 March 2014. Mr Hepana had pleaded guilty to the murder of Jasmine Cooper. The court was tasked with determining the minimum term of imprisonment that should be imposed on Mr Hepana before he becomes eligible for parole. The court also needed to consider various aggravating and mitigating factors in determining the appropriate sentence.

The court began by outlining the facts of the case. Mr Hepana and Ms Cooper had been in a relationship and living together until an argument in November 2013 led to its end. Despite this, Mr Hepana continued to contact Ms Cooper, leading her to serve a trespass notice on him. On 22 December 2013, Mr Hepana went to Ms Cooper's property despite her requests for him to leave. He argued with her on her porch, strangled her to the point of unconsciousness, and then struck her with a rock, causing her death. Mr Hepana pleaded guilty to the charge of murder before a full pathological report was prepared.

In determining the minimum term of imprisonment, the court considered several aggravating factors. The attack occurred in the middle of the night on a vulnerable woman living alone, and Mr Hepana had no legal right to be on the property. Additionally, he had a history of violent offending, particularly against women, and had previously been sentenced to ten years imprisonment for serious violent crimes. The court also considered mitigating factors, such as Mr Hepana's early guilty plea, although it noted his lack of remorse and the overwhelming nature of the evidence against him. The court ultimately decided to reduce the minimum term by one year to reflect the early guilty plea.

The court sentenced Mr Hepana to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 17 years before he becomes eligible for parole. The court's decision was based on the gravity of the offence, Mr Hepana's history of violent offending, and the need to deter future similar conduct. The court emphasised that the actual sentence of life imprisonment would be determined by the parole authorities, who would consider the risk Mr Hepana posed to the community upon potential release.

Orders