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: maximum penalty life imprisonment, and s 267(1)(b): maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

2      Crimes Act 1961, ss 171 and 66(2): maximum penalty life imprisonment.

3      Crimes Act 1961, ss 189(2) and 66: maximum sentence five years’ imprisonment.

you much with those feelings; they are going to take much longer to ease. The only thing I can say about today is that, after today, all but one of the people involved in Dean’s murder and setting fire to the house will have been sentenced and that brings the end to the legal consequences of the murder much closer. I hope that means that you will be able to start to focus on yourselves and on recovering as best you can from this terrible tragedy.

[8]                  Mr Tohiariki, your victim impact statement was very moving. It was very difficult to hear. It was so sad. Thank you for acting as whānau spokesperson. Your description of Dean as a rat bag, a funny guy and even a “shithead” at times, was straight up and it was said with such affection. As you say, no-one deserves to be taken off the earth in this manner. It will be a long road for you all to try to make any sense of what happened, and to eventually have to explain it to younger whānau members. What you have said about having to deal with things day to day and to try not to plan too far ahead—those are very wise words. I am encouraged to hear that some of you have been undertaking counselling and I really would encourage you, those who have already started, to continue; and those who are struggling, to seek help because you will need it.

[9]                 Mr Tohiariki, you have said that Dean’s whānau members are broken, but I sense that there is also strength there too. Kia kaha e te whānau.

Sentencing process

[10]              I need to start the sentencing process by describing what happened, and then I need to explain the sentences that I will impose on each defendant.

[11]              In passing sentence, I have to take into account the principles and purposes of sentencing. Accountability, deterrence and denunciation are to the forefront in a sentencing for a matter such as this. I need to take into account the gravity or seriousness of the offending and the degree of culpability involved. I also need to try to be consistent with sentencing for similar offending. I have to recognise the harm caused by this offending, taking into account the information that I have been given about the effects on the victims. At the same time, I am also required to impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances.

(a)For Mr Waho-Marsden, there is no question that he will be sentenced to life imprisonment. The only question for his sentence is how many years he will have to serve of his sentence before he can be considered for parole. There is no dispute either that the murder in this case is one where Parliament has said that a person must serve a minimum period of imprisonment of at least 17 years unless that would be manifestly unjust. For the benefit of whānau, I want to make it clear that the time Mr Waho-Marsden will have to serve in prison before he can be considered for parole is not his sentence; that only means the time when he can ask for parole, and that would be a decision for the Parole Board in many years’ time. And even if the Parole Board eventually releases him on parole, he will remain on parole and under the supervision of Corrections for the rest of his life and can be returned to prison at any time if Corrections decide that is necessary.

(b)For Mr Hines, I need to decide on a starting point for his sentence and on any reductions that can be made to that starting point. Mr Hines, as some of you will know from coming to previous hearings, was given a sentence indication by another Judge. He did not accept that. I have considered that sentence indication, but I have to make my own assessment of what I think the sentence should be.

What happened

[12]              Turning to what happened; at the time Mr Kahukiwa was murdered, he was in a relationship with Jade Oldridge, and was living with her and her two children in Foxton. Ms Oldridge is related to Mr Hines and to Ms McKenzie, referring to them as Uncle and Aunty.

[13]              On 16 September 2023, Ms Oldridge was taken to Lower Hutt hospital after Mr Kahukiwa assaulted her, but she left the hospital before she had any medical treatment. She spent the next day with Mr Kahukiwa visiting family and friends in Lower Hutt before they went home to Foxton.

[14]              A couple of days later, on 18 September 2023 at 11:37 am, Ms Oldridge sent a text message to Ms McKenzie asking her to “tell uncle” to come to her home and “to smash” Mr Kahukiwa. Soon after that text, she also called Ms McKenzie and texted her to “come to mine auntie please”. Ms McKenzie contacted Mr Hines and then texted Ms Oldridge back to say that she had let him know. Ms Oldridge asked again— she said, “please aunty  now”.  After  these  messages,  Ms  McKenzie  contacted  Mr Hines again, to say that Ms Oldridge needed him to go over to her house. There was a phone call between Mr Hines and Ms McKenzie, and Ms McKenzie texted  Ms Oldridge to say  that  Mr  Hines  was  “coming  now”.  She  continued  to  text Ms Oldridge to say he would not be long, not to let Mr Kahukiwa know that Mr Hines was on his way, and she said that he would “sort it”.

[15]              Shortly before midday, Mr Hines made a phone call to a third person. He left home in Shannon. He travelled towards Foxton. Soon after that, Mr Waho-Marsden called Mr Hines. They arranged to meet on Reeve Street in Foxton. The summary of facts that is the basis of Mr Hines’ guilty plea says that Mr Hines intended to intimidate and injure Mr Kahukiwa in retaliation for his violence against Ms Oldridge.

[16]              After a number of calls between Mr Waho-Marsden and Mr Hines, Mr Hines arrived in Reeve Street—this is shortly after midday. Mr Waho-Marsden, armed with a firearm, arrived with another person around 10 minutes later. There was a discussion between  them  in  which  Mr  Waho-Marsden  agreed  to  intimidate  and  injure   Mr Kahukiwa. Mr Hines knew Mr Waho-Marsden was armed, and also has accepted by his guilty plea, that he knew Mr Waho-Marsden might well use the gun to shoot Mr Kahukiwa in the course of that carrying out that plan to intimidate and injure.

[17]              The three men approached the front door. Mr Kahukiwa was at home wearing only a towel. Ms Oldridge was also at home with one of her children. Mr Hines and the other man stayed outside.

[18]Mr Waho-Marsden went inside where he shot Mr Kahukiwa five times with a

.22 calibre rifle and killed him. The fatal shot severed his aorta.

Mr Waho-Marsden

[19]              In relation to Mr Waho-Marsden, the Crown has referred the Court to a number of cases involving targeted shootings, as well as others involving shooting of people in their own home.4

[20]              The Crown says in this case, s 104 of the Sentencing Act applies in two ways, and that means that a minimum of a 17-year minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) must apply.

[21]              The first factor is unlawful  entry  into,  or presence in,  a dwelling  place.5  Mr Waho-Marsden’s presence in Mr Kahukiwa’s home became unlawful, at the latest, when the attack on Mr Kahukiwa began. It could be said that his unlawful presence started earlier than that as the only purpose for going in was unlawful itself. Mr Waho- Marsden was there for the purpose of harming Mr Kahukiwa, who, dressed only in a towel, was hardly in a position to resist entry into the home.

[22]              Mr Winter, for Mr Waho-Marsden, very responsibly does not disagree this factor is engaged, and I agree that it is.

[23]              The second factor the Crown points to is to say that this is a murder committed with a high degree of brutality, cruelty, depravity, or callousness.6 The Crown says that the gunshot wounds, that is, the number and location of them, suggests that     Mr Waho-Marsden had shot Mr Kahukiwa in that way to inflict pain and prolong suffering. The Crown also points to the subsequent actions in leaving the body, then returning a week later to set fire to the house, which must have been to dispose of the evidence.

[24]              Mr Winter does disagree the second factor is involved. He does not agree about the inference or conclusion the Crown is asking the Court to draw about the bullet

4      R v Samuels {2019] NZHC 2948, R v Pukepuke [2023] NZHC 3700, R v Tahitahi [2024] NZHC 2284.

5      Sentencing Act 2002, s 104(1)(c).

6      Section 104(1)(e).

wounds, and nor does he agree that the arson was any sort of calm, calculated conduct or had any degree of sophistication.

[25]              I agree with Mr Winter that this factor is not engaged in this case. I agree that what the Crown is asking the Court to conclude about the bullet wounds is simply too speculative; that is in relation to the number of shots and where the wounds were located. I also agree that the arson afterwards seems to have happened with little planning and no sophistication at all, but rather seems to have been an afterthought carried out in a clumsy amateurish manner to try and cover up the murder. I have not been provided with any cases where such conduct after has resulted in s 104(1)(e) being engaged, and it is not comparable to other cases I am aware of where subsequent conduct in relation to covering up a crime, particularly in relation to the body of a deceased person, are of a very different order.

[26]              The Crown also says there is a degree of premeditation involved in the murder. I do not accept that submission. There is some premeditation in the travelling to the house to extract retaliation for violence, but that was a plan that started and concluded in a relatively short period of time.

[27]              I agree with the Crown that the arson charge, considered by itself, would have a starting point of around four years’ imprisonment, for a deliberately lit fire using an accelerant, with the risks associated with that. While I have not agreed that it engages s 104 as an additional factor, I do agree that it does make the murder more serious and supports it being a murder to which a 17-year MPI is warranted.

[28]              So, in light of those matters, given that s 104 applies, a 17-year MPI is warranted to reflect the shooting of a person in their own home where they should have been safe, acting in retaliation or retribution with some gang undertones, and something that was such a very excessive response, and has caused such massive harm to the whānau, of which Mr Kahukiwa was a much loved son, brother, uncle and father.

[29]              That means a 17-year MPI must apply unless it would be manifestly unjust. I look at personal factors, although they have to play a lesser role than they would otherwise if I was not imposing a sentence for a murder.

[30]              The Court of Appeal has said that the minimum period Parliament has specified may not be departed from lightly, and that the presence of mitigating factors for personal circumstances would only really displace the presumption. Mr Winter has also accepted that a 17-year MPI applies.7

[31]              I do want to make mention of Mr Waho-Marsden’s personal circumstances, however. He has previous convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm and aggravated robbery, as well as reckless discharge of a firearm. Ordinarily those convictions would warrant a modest uplift. I can see from Mr Waho-Marsden’s criminal history that he has been in the Justice system, starting in the Youth Court in 2012 when he would have only been 14.

[32]              Mr Waho-Marsden told the writer of his PAC report that he was uplifted by Oranga Tamariki when he was nine and spent the next eight years in and out of different homes until he went to Youth Justice and on to prison. A psychological report completed in 2021 indicated that he witnessed violence and substance abuse during his childhood and began offending at around the age of 11. His life has revolved around his gang. He has never been employed and does not appear to have ever had any stable routine.

[33]              I have also seen a Hokai Tapuwae Report from Corrections which has set out Mr Waho-Marsden’s history in some detail. I am not going to go through it; it is a very sad one. There is what is called a “pipeline” from State care to gang life, youth justice and prison that is well known to the Courts. And those matters do go quite some way to explaining how he has come to have committed this offending, which is otherwise difficult to comprehend. But there is hope too for Mr Waho-Marsden. He has completed programs on previous sentences. He has been currently engaged in a program while he has been on remand. He has been actively seeking information about his background and culture. Mr Winter has said this has been a very significant change for him, and it is something that is assisting him to come to terms with the very long time that he is going to be in prison. He has also expressed a wish to rehabilitate. He has some family support, and a child who is said to be his biggest inspiration. The

7      R v Williams [2005] 2 NZLR 506 (CA) at [66].

report also said Mr Waho-Marsden was fluent in te reo as a child, and he is getting that back.  It is very important for Mr Waho-Marsden’s future to get back his connections.

[34]              I can readily find a connection between Mr Waho-Marsden’s history and this offending. That, together with his guilty pleas, which I agree realistically could not really have come any earlier, could warrant reductions of about 12 months each. That would mean a MPI of around 15 years would otherwise be appropriate if not for s 104.

[35]              I am unable however, to find that a MPI of 17 years would be manifestly unjust. I have considered the cases referred to by the Crown, that Mr Winter accepts are applicable.8 Mr Waho-Marsden is not very young, nor suffering from diagnosed mental health conditions as in other cases, and that means that the presumption of a 17-year minimum period is not displaced.

[36]Can you please stand Mr Waho-Marsden.

[37]              For the reasons I have talked about, your sentence is life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years which is required by s 104 of the Sentencing Act.

[38]              For the arson charge, I sentence you to two years’ imprisonment, that is from a four-year starting point with a reduction for pleading guilty and your personal matters. Your sentence for arson is to be served at the same time as your sentence for murder.

[39]You can take a seat now. Thank you.

8      See for example, R v Pukepuke, above n 2.

William Hines

[40]              Now I need to assess a starting point for Mr Hines’ sentence for the manslaughter charge.

Submissions of the parties

[41]              The Crown has asked me to take a starting point of 13 years’ imprisonment and apply a reduction of just under 20 per cent for Mr Hines’ guilty plea. The Crown points to the vigilante nature of what was planned and what happened with the use of a firearm that Mr Hines knew Mr Waho-Marsden had, and that he might well use it. The Crown points to the involvement of other people at Mr Hines’ instigation, some premeditation and planning in the arrangement to intimidate and hurt Mr Kahukiwa in his own home which led to fatal consequences and the devastating impact on his whānau.

[42]              Mr Stevenson KC says an appropriate starting point for Mr Hines’ sentence is no more than seven years’ imprisonment. He says that what happened in this case was not gang-related. Instead, it was Mr Hines responding to an urgent request for help. Mr Stevenson points to Mr Hines as a person having a strong responsibility to protect and look after others. He stresses that Mr Hines did not go in the house. He was not present when Mr Waho-Marsden shot and killed Mr Kahukiwa.

[43]              Mr Stevenson says the weapon was brought for defensive purposes because it was thought that Mr Kahukiwa might be armed. Mr Stevenson says the Crown has accepted this reason for the firearm being taken to the address, and he says this significantly reduces the criminality of the event. He points out that causing serious harm, let alone killing Mr Kahukiwa, was never part of any plan.

Starting point

[44]              There is no guideline decision for manslaughter sentencing. The cases vary widely9. This offence can result from such a wide range of circumstances with very different levels of culpability or blameworthiness.

9      R v Leuta [2002] 1 NZLR 214 (CA).

[45]              The basis on which I sentence Mr Hines is that he responded to his niece’s request to cause harm to Mr Kahukiwa (although I accept the request had some urgency attached to it), and he brought in other people to respond to that request. While this was not a gang-related incident in an obvious sense, there are gang undertones to it, when Mr Hines has sent in Mr Waho-Marsden—a gang member of the same gang that he is closely associated with—into the home of another gang member from a different gang, Mr Kahukiwa. Mr Hines did not go inside. He was not present when Mr Waho-Marsden killed Mr Kahukiwa,  and  he  did  not  know Mr Waho-Marsden would shoot him with murderous intent when the plan was only to intimidate and inflict some violence.   But  Mr Hines has accepted he  knew that    Mr Waho-Marsden might well use the gun in a manner going beyond defending himself, and he was waiting outside with another person. I agree with the Crown that Mr Hines’ role as the instigator of a plan to intimidate and harm, involving an armed person entering a home, is very significant.

[46]              I have read and considered a wide range of manslaughter cases. The cases that Mr Stevenson has provided have starting points sentences between four-and-a-half years to eight years and three months.10 They, like this case, involve people retaliating against others, and an offender who was not present when a person was fatally assaulted; although in one case (Hughes) the offender was present and apparently encouraged it.

[47]              The cases the Crown has provided have starting points that range between eight years and 13 years.11

[48]              Cases have ranged from eight years—for someone who arranged with another person to collect a debt and encouraged them to seriously assault the victim who died as a result (Neketai), up to 13 years for the organiser of an attack carried out by a group of Black Power gang members against rival gang members (Pahau). In that case, the offender remained in the car holding the gun while others confronted the other group, chasing them, and one of them was fatally stabbed.

10 R v Chourn [2021] NZHC 1528, R v Hughes [2023] NZHC 2956, Clegg v R [2011] NZCA 473.

11  R v Neketai [2023] NZHC 2711, Zimmerman v R [2024] NZCA 523, R v Madams [2017] NZHC 81, R v Moananui [2021] NZHC 1723, Griffin v R [2019] NZCA 422, and Pahau v R [2011] NZCA 147.

[49]              It is not easy to compare all of these facts which are all distinctive. But I make following points.

[50]              At the top end of the range of these cases is a 13-year starting point in Pahau v R which has some similarity here when the offender was in a leadership role, as I consider Mr Hines  also  was  in this case.  It is  apparent that  Mr Hines recruited  Mr Waho-Marsden who was acting under his direction in entering the house with a firearm. But in that case, the offender was much closer to the ultimately fatal assault. Another case at the high end involved an armed robbery by several offenders.12 The circumstances appear quite different to me. In another case, a gang group attack was planned intending to cause very serious violence to punish younger gang members.13

[51]              At the other end of the spectrum is a case with a four-and-a-half year starting point where the offender took a victim to a place where other people were, telling them not to hurt him too much, but he was fatally assaulted. 14 The present case is much more serious than that.

[52]              In the middle are a number of cases around the six-year/seven-year starting point mark.15 Doing my best to compare them, I agree with the Crown they appear to be of a less serious order.

[53]              So, doing the best that I can to compare the cases and attempt to be consistent, I take into account:

(a)The vigilante nature of the actions, despite that the motivation may have stemmed from a misguided sense of responsibility. I note it is hard to reconcile what happened with the suggestion that Mr Hines was only intending to save his niece from urgent danger. That is not consistent with her request for him to “smash” Mr Kahukiwa, nor does it explain why he was waiting outside while a person with a gun went in.

12     Griffin v R, above n 11.

13     R v Moananui, above n 11.

14     R v Chourn; above n 10.

15     R v Hughes, above n 10; R v Madams (co-offender); R v Neketai; Zimmerman v R, above n 11.

(b)The instigation of a plan to intimidate and harm a person in their own home, in effect catching them unawares. That is the premeditation that I assess as involved in this case. It was a fairly hastily put together plan it seems.

(c)I do think there are gang  undertones  involved  in  this  case,  with  Mr Waho-Marsden being a much younger man as compared to Mr Hines, in effect, a junior. And, in my view, Mr Hines can be said to have had some level of leadership role in relation to him. The fact too that Mr Hines was so quickly able to assemble people demonstrates his seniority. I will go on to discuss further that Mr Hines does not accept he is a gang member. But he is very closely connected and associated, and, in my view, he has acted in the manner of a senior gang member not as a concerned uncle, although that was the basis of the start of his involvement.

(d)The fact that Mr Waho-Marsden was only present with the firearm and entered the house with it because he had been enlisted by Mr Hines. There is the suggestion of the gun being taken for self-defence and I take that into account, but also there is the summary of facts which is acceptance to knowing that Mr Waho-Marsden might use it, going beyond its presence in case Mr Kahukiwa had a weapon. And I note the circumstances here where Mr Kahukiwa appears to have been confronted unexpectedly, answering the door only in a towel.

(e)Although Mr Hines did not go into the house, his presence outside may be considered as providing support or numbers if that became necessary. As against that, I do accept that his involvement was less proximate or close to the actions of Mr Waho-Marsden, in shooting Mr Kahukiwa than in the cases the Crown has referred to where the starting points have been 12 or 13 years.

[54]              Taking all those matters together into account; I have assessed an appropriate starting point of 10 years’ imprisonment. I have cross-checked that with the case of

R v Taueki, although I agree it is possibly not of great assistance in this case. I would tend to agree with the Crown that if this had been a grievous bodily harm case (which it might well have been if death had not resulted), the offending would easily sit within band 3 of the sentencing bands in that case. I also note that the starting point I have adopted is at the upper end of the starting point the Crown was seeking at Mr Hines’ sentence indication.

Personal factors

[55]              In terms of matters that might increase the starting point, there are Mr Hines’ previous convictions. The Crown has suggested a modest uplift may be available.

[56]              I will not apply an uplift. The modest sentences imposed for those matters mean that even a small uplift would have the potential to amount to double punishment for that previous offending.

[57]              In terms of matters that would reduce the starting point, the first, is Mr Hines’ guilty plea. I accept Mr Stevenson’s submission that the reduction in this case should 25 per cent. Although the guilty plea was 16 months after Mr Hines was charged, it came after the murder charge was reduced to manslaughter and the arson charge was withdrawn. That is a very significant change, and the reality is that time is necessary to reach those sorts of agreements.

[58]              I have read the report about Mr Hines that has been provided under s 27 of the Sentencing Act which explains Mr Hines’ whakapapa with his associated hapū and iwi’s history of land loss and cultural disconnection. Mr Hines had a stable upbringing with his grandparents, although he was impacted by a sense of disconnection from his parents who remained in Auckland. There was exposure to alcohol, drug use, and gang involvement. The report says that throughout Mr Hines’ life he has been exposed to, and drawn into, gang dynamics through his family associations. His family is a notorious one. Mr Hines, although said not to be formally involved in the gang, has been assumed to be a gang member which has had an impact on him. He has been a person others have turned to, to resolve conflicts or deal with matters in a way that mirrors gang expectations. The report says that, combined with his desire for acceptance and approval of senior whānau, has drawn him into behaviour that aligns

with those groups. The offending in this case is said to reflect that pattern, but also demonstrating the responsibility Mr Hines felt to look after others.

[59]              I accept there is a causal connection between Mr Hines’ background and the offending in this case. I am prepared to reduce the sentence by 10 per cent to reflect that connection. I do not consider any greater reduction can be made, given Mr Hines’ role in such serious offending. Although Mr Hines may not consider himself formally as a gang member, that does not seem to reflect the reality of how he has behaved. In my view, he has behaved as if he was a gang boss. This is not a response to a family member’s request for help that most New Zealanders would understand, outside of a gang context, and the person recruited for the job was a younger gang member. While he may be someone who feels responsible for helping whānau, that is been in a way that is warped, dysfunctional and with total disregard to the law. Unless and until Mr Hines recognises that he needs some help to learn how to discharge his responsibilities in a different way, he is at risk of reoffending. And in this case, I consider that the instigation of violence with such a tragic and entirely preventable result requires that denunciation, deterrence and accountability must be to the forefront of the sentencing principles engaged in this case.

[60]              That means, from a 10-year starting point with reductions of 25 per cent for the guilty plea and 10 per cent for the matters in the s 27 report, the end sentence reduces to six-and-a-half years’ imprisonment.

[61]              The Crown has not asked for a minimum period of imprisonment. No submissions have been made either in support or against an MPI. I will not impose an MPI although I have considered it. It is my view that the Parole Board is best placed to assess Mr Hines at the time he becomes eligible for parole. And I consider that parole would appear to be an unlikely prospect unless Mr Hines is willing and able to make the changes that he needs to make.

[62]Please stand Mr Hines.

[63]              On the charge of manslaughter, you are sentenced to six-and-a-half years’ imprisonment.

[64]Thank you can both stand down now.

ADJOURNMENT

Teresa McKenzie

[65]              Ms McKenzie has accepted a sentence indication given by La Hood J of a starting point of two years’ imprisonment, a reduction of 20 per cent for a guilty plea, the potential for further reductions, as well as a likely outcome of an electronically monitored sentence, which the Crown did not oppose.

[66]              The two-year starting point for Ms McKenzie was reached on the basis of her charge which is being a party to injuring with intent to injure, a charge with a five- year maximum penalty. It reflects Ms McKenzie’s assistance with Ms Oldridge’s request for retribution against Mr Kahukiwa. In effect, Ms McKenzie acted as a go- between for Ms Oldridge and Mr Hines, passing on the message that had such a tragic outcome. His Honour took into account some level of premeditation (but not significant) and that although Ms McKenzie’s actions did contribute to the fatal outcome, she was not aware of any intention to inflict the level of violence that happened.

[67]              It is usual for the Judge who gives a sentence indication to go on to sentence an offender. That has not been possible. I am sentencing Ms McKenzie today on the basis that I agree with the indication, and I am not departing from it.

[68]              A PAC report in July recommended a sentence of at least home detention was required. The address at that time was not suitable. However, an updating report has come in now and there is a suitable address, and the recommendation is the same.

[69]              I have noted that in the PAC report, Ms McKenzie said to the report writer that she had not intended for anything to happen, and she just wanted to get her niece out of the home. And she had said she was just at home, and she was “being a mum”. Well, Ms McKenzie what you did, has no relationship to “being a mum” in any sense that is acceptable in society. One of the conditions of your sentence will be attendance at programmes, where for your and your children’s futures, you must learn new acceptable ways of dealing with whānau difficulties.

[70]              The only question for me today is whether to make any additional reductions to the starting point.

[71]              I have seen a letter of support from Ms McKenzie’s sister-in-law who has reported that Ms McKenzie had a difficult upbringing and some trauma as a child, none of which has been addressed professionally. She believes that had an impact on the ability to make wise choices, and I accept that what she has reported seems to go some way to explaining the behaviour in this case.

[72]              Ms McKenzie has herself also provided an affidavit explaining her personal circumstances, and setting out her explanation that she had no idea that passing on her niece’s request would lead to what happened. She has also said she is deeply sorry. She wishes she could take back her message, and she has written a letter of apology that she hopes can be provided to Mr Kahukiwa’s whānau.

[73]              I am unable to accept Mr Preston’s submission that an additional reduction of up to 25 per cent is available for Ms McKenzie’s history, her remorse and the effect of sentence on her children.

[74]              There is little history provided by Ms McKenzie except the fact of life-long association with gang members, that of itself would not necessarily show a link with the offending. It is also the case that the affidavit and the letter in support are not altogether consistent. There is remorse and a letter of apology. I expect that will be cold comfort to Mr Kahukiwa’s family, but it is an expression of remorse that has been made.

[75]              As I said to Mr Preston, I do not accept any reduction is available for the effect of a sentence of home detention on children. These are matters of inconvenience rather than the sort of impact that the Courts take into account when caregivers are sentenced to imprisonment. It is also the case that absences from home detention to deal with necessary matters can be agreed, and I think Ms McKenzie will be well able to work with her probation officer to make sure that her children’s needs are met. They may miss some activities but that is of minor moment in the circumstances.

[76]              I am prepared to reduce the sentence, but only by another five per cent to reflect that there appears to be some explanation or causative connection between

Ms McKenzie’s history and the offending, together with some remorse that has been expressed at this late stage.

[77]              That means that from a starting point of two years, applying the two reductions of 20 per cent and five per cent, the end sentence reached is 18 months’ imprisonment. That is below the level where I can look at alternatives to imprisonment, and it would translate to a nine-month sentence of home detention. There are a number of special conditions, including attendance at programmes that I have already mentioned. And as I have discussed with the lawyers, I have removed one condition and made an amendment to another one.

[78]Can you please stand Ms McKenzie.

[79]              You are sentenced on your charge of being a party to injuring with intent to injure to nine months’ home detention on the conditions set out. You will get a copy of those conditions and they apply for the period of the detention and for six months afterwards. You will have some paperwork to sign and then you will need to travel directly from Court to the address to begin your sentence.

[80]You can take a seat now, thanks.

Danielle Prisk

[81]              Ms Prisk also accepted a sentence indication by La Hood J for her role in assisting  Mr  Waho-Marsden  with  his  efforts  to  burn  down  the  house  where  Mr Kahukiwa’s body was left. Justice La Hood accepted her role was limited to providing petrol at Mr Waho-Marsden’s direction, but he also noted the risks involved with such accelerants. He did not consider there was much premeditation, although it was not spur of the moment either. It was also obvious that Ms Prisk knew there was an unlawful purpose involved, although she did not know the details or the purpose, or what the consequences would be to the property.

[82]              The starting point was 12 months’ imprisonment with a 20 per cent reduction available for a guilty plea.

[83]              Mr Drummond today asks for further reductions to reflect that Ms Prisk has been on a curfew for some 21 months, and for matters recorded in the PAC report about her background.

[84]              I do not need to go into all of those matters but what I have read suggests an inadequate upbringing, a connection with gangs, and the offending is likely the result of associates, combined with drug use. I am prepared to make a further modest reduction of five per cent to reflect the matters about Ms Prisk that do explain how she came to be involved. I am not prepared to make a reduction for bail conditions. The curfew was not especially onerous. It would be quite academic in any case given the recommendation (with which I agree), is for community detention and supervision. I agree that is the least restrictive sentence that is appropriate in the circumstances.

[85]              From a starting point of 12 months, the reductions take the sentence down to nine months. I will commute that to a sentence of four months’ community detention, and 12 months’ supervision on the conditions set out in the report.

[86]Please stand Ms Prisk.

[87]              Your sentence will be four months’ community detention with a daily curfew between 7:00 pm to 7:00 am at the address. The first curfew will begin today, so you

will also need to get home as soon as you can to begin the sentence after you sign some paperwork. There are a number of conditions of that sentence which include drug and alcohol and other counselling and programmes.

[88]Thank you, you can both stand down now.

Grau J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Wellington for Crown

cc:C Stevenson KC, Wellington for Defendant William Hines O S Winter, Palmerston North for Defendant Waho-Marsden K F Preston, Wellington for Defendant McKenzie

P J Drummond, Palmerston North for Defendant Prisk