R v Hines - [2025] NZHC 2399

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2023-031-1144

[2025] NZHC 2399

THE KING

v

WILLIAM MAAKY OJ HINES QUENTIN WAHO-MARSDEN TERESA MAIRE MCKENZIE DANIELLE LOGAN PRISK

Hearing: 21 August 2025

Counsel:

E M Ferrier and R S Bedggood for Crown

C W J Stevenson KC and J Spelman for Defendant Hines O S Winter for Defendant Waho-Marsden

K F Preston and J Connell for Defendant McKenzie P J Drummond for Defendant Prisk

Sentencing Notes:

21 August 2025

SENTENCING NOTES OF GRAU J

The offenders and the charges

[1] Mr Waho-Marsden and Mr William Hines are for sentence today for their roles in the killing of Mr Dean Kahukiwa on 18 September 2023, and Mr Waho-Marsden is also to be sentenced in relation to the fire that was lit at Mr Kahukiwa’s house just over a week later.

R v HINES & ORS (SENTENCING) [2025] NZHC 2399 [21 August 2025]

[2] Mr Waho-Marsden has pleaded guilty to charges of murder and arson.1 He has admitted to shooting and killing Mr Kahukiwa at his house and arranging with others to set fire to the house.

[3] Mr Hines has pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter.2 He has admitted to arranging to meet Mr Waho-Marsden at Mr Kahukiwa’s house for the purpose of intimidation and retaliation against Mr Kahukiwa at Ms Oldridge’s request after Mr Kahukiwa had assaulted her. Although Mr Hines was not inside the house when Mr Waho-Marsden shot and killed Mr Kahukiwa, by his guilty plea he has accepted that he knew Mr Waho-Marsden had gone inside with a loaded firearm and that it was something that could well happen that Mr Waho-Marsden would shoot Mr Kahukiwa in the course of carrying out their plan to intimidate and inflict some violence.

[4] There are a number of other people who have been charged in relation to Mr Kahukiwa’s death. Ms Oldridge has pleaded guilty to a charge of being a party to injuring with intent to injure.3 She is the person who set the tragic event in motion by asking for Mr Hines to come to the house and “smash” Mr Kahukiwa. She will be sentenced on another day in the not-too-distant future.

[5] There is also Ms McKenzie and Ms Prisk. Ms McKenzie has accepted assisting Ms Oldridge in her request by passing it on to Mr Hines. I will be sentencing her and Ms Prisk, who was involved in the arson, separately after this.

[6] Other people were also charged. One person has been sentenced for their involvement in the arson and a number of other people had their charges dismissed.

Acknowledgement of the whānau

[7] Before I go any further, I want to formally acknowledge the whānau of Mr Kahukiwa—those who are here and those who are watching online. I acknowledge your pain, your grief, and your anger. I do not expect that this sentencing will help

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 167 and 66:…

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 Hines

Details

AGLC: R v Hines [2025] NZHC 2399
Case: [2025] NZHC 2399
Decision Date: 21 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hines involves a sentencing hearing for William Maaky OJ Hines, Quentin Waho-Marsden, Teresa Maire McKenzie, and Danielle Logan Prisk, following their involvement in the death of Dean Kahukiwa and the subsequent arson at his residence. The legal issues in the case include determining appropriate sentences for each defendant, considering the principles of sentencing such as accountability, deterrence, denunciation, and the least restrictive outcome. The court also had to address the statutory requirement of a minimum period of imprisonment for certain murders under Section 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002.

The High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry, presided by Grau J, held that Quentin Waho-Marsden would be sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 17 years, reflecting the seriousness of the crime and the need for accountability and deterrence. The court found that the MPI was not manifestly unjust despite Waho-Marsden's troubled background and potential mitigating factors. For the arson charge, Waho-Marsden was sentenced to two years imprisonment, to run concurrently with the murder sentence.

William Maaky OJ Hines was sentenced to six-and-a-half years imprisonment for manslaughter, considering his role in instigating the plan to harm Kahukiwa. The court applied reductions for his guilty plea and personal circumstances but emphasised the need for denunciation and deterrence given the serious nature of the crime.

Teresa Maire McKenzie, who facilitated the communication between Jade Oldridge and Hines, was sentenced to nine months imprisonment, reduced to 18 months on appeal, and further reduced to 18 months' imprisonment, which translated to nine months of home detention with specific conditions. The court took into account her limited history and the impact of sentence on her children.

Danielle Logan Prisk, who assisted in the arson, was sentenced to four months community detention and 12 months’ supervision, reflecting her limited role and the need for rehabilitation. The court considered her background and the risks involved in the offending.

The court's reasoning focused on the principles of sentencing, the gravity of the offences, and the need to ensure that sentences reflect the harm caused and provide for accountability and deterrence, while also considering the defendants' backgrounds and potential for rehabilitation. The final orders include specific sentences for each defendant, with conditions and requirements for supervision and participation in rehabilitation programs where applicable.

Orders