R v Hoani

[2013] NZHC 2701

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2013-009-007174 [2013] NZHC 2701

REGINA

v

COLIN ALBERT HOANI

Hearing:	17 October 2013
Counsel:	P J Shamy and C E Butchard for the Crown E C Bulger for C M Ruane for Mr Hoani
Judgment:	17 October 2013

SENTENCING REMARKS OF PANCKHURST J

Introduction

[1]    Colin Hoani, you are for sentence in relation to the crime of murder.  As you no doubt have been told, the invariable sentence in New Zealand for this crime is life imprisonment and I will impose that sentence shortly, at which stage I will require you to stand.

[2]     The other issue which I must address is the imposition of a minimum period of imprisonment. In this case, the duration of that minimum period is not in dispute as between counsel. Nonetheless, it is necessary for me to record the facts of this case, to refer to your background and thereby to explain the reasons for the sentence which I am about to impose.

R v HOANI [2013] NZHC 2701 [17 October 2013]

The facts

[3] You took the life of Mrs Valmai McFie. This was on 20 July of this year, a Saturday. She was aged 67 years. She lived next door to you in a block of council flats. There was a history of disharmony between you and her. She held concerns about some of your activities, for example, whether you were having overnight visitors in your flat in breach of the council rules. The disharmony spilled over from time to time. Words were exchanged. More than that, Mrs McFie made a complaint to the council and some steps were taken to try and resolve the differences. Mediation occurred, but obviously an accommodation was not reached.

[4] On this Saturday, at about 6.20 in the evening, you were sitting outside drinking a cup of coffee and having a cigarette. Mrs McFie returned home on foot. Words were spoken – your version is that there was a racial comment directed to you.

[5] Picking up a line from the submissions of your counsel, Mr Ruane, you apparently said that this was the last straw. You took up a boning knife. You attacked Mrs McFie with it. In the course of that attack you inflicted multiple stab wounds, at least 17 in total. These were mainly to the upper torso. She collapsed and died on the spot.

[6]   At that point you went to a neighbour’s flat and asked that the neighbour call the police. You explained “I have just killed Val”. While waiting you sent texts to two members of your whanau to similar effect, advising that you had just taken a life. When the police arrived a short time later you pointed out the position of Mrs McFie and simply admitted that you had killed her.

[7] The issue of provocation is mentioned in the submissions. You of course assert that there was a racist remark. We shall never know, however, Mrs McFie’s side of the story. Whatever the truth, I agree with the stance that Mr Ruane, your counsel, adopted in his written submissions. He said that it would make little difference. Your response was grossly disproportionate. Using your own words, you “totally lost it”, anger took over and as you told another of the report writers this was

the angriest you had ever felt. These then were the circumstances in which you took this unfortunate woman’s life.

The victim impact statement

[8]   I am assured that you had already read the victim impact statement which has just been read again this morning. The loss of a family member to murder is inevitably  horrendous.  Certainly,  that  is  the  case  here.   It  is  obvious  that Mrs McFie’s family in Australia are asking questions about why this has happened, and why it was not preventable, given the history of disharmony to which I have referred. I cannot answer those questions. It seems to me this was a case, as you admitted from the outset, of total loss of control.

Personal circumstances

[9] I note Mr Hoani that you are 59 years of age. I have a good deal of information about you, including a number of letters written by members of your extended whanau. A letter from your son, from a number of your sisters, from a sister-in-law and from a number of nieces. It is apparent from reading those that they too are struggling to come to grips with the enormity of your crime. The letters provide some insights into your past, and into issues with which you have been confronted in the course of your lifetime.

[10] I also have a psychiatric report which I requested when you entered a plea of guilty to the charge a short time ago. It is very comprehensive. It covers your life history, recounts some of the struggles you have had, although they are nothing particularly remarkable and certainly provide no explanation for your actions. Most importantly, that report confirms that there is no mental health problem which explains, or in any way mitigates your crime.

[11] The pre-sentence report confirms that you do have a number of previous criminal convictions. These however, are mainly historic. Particularly recently, there have been no convictions of any great moment. Indeed, throughout your lifetime you have not previously committed an offence of violence.  And, I note as

well, that you have never previously been sentenced to imprisonment. I take the view that the previous convictions are, for these reasons, of little moment.

Evaluation

[12]   As to the crime itself the aggravating features are self-evident.  They are also in my view of a kind which are inherent to the crime of murder; the brutality of the act, the vulnerability of the victim and the enormity of the impact.

[13] There are I accept two mitigating factors. The first is your conduct immediately after the event and indeed since then. You accepted responsibility and immediately admitted what you had done. You co-operated with the authorities when interviewed.

[14] Secondly, 18 days after the event, you entered a plea of guilty in this Court to the crime of murder. Your explanation for this as given to one of the report writers was that you wished to conclude matters, and avoid causing work and anguish to others. Another comment is that you have not sought to minimise the seriousness of your actions. I think, Mr Hoani, that you do have a measure of insight into the pain that you have caused to others, and perhaps as well remorse in relation to your actions.

[15] The Crown represented today by Ms Butchard has made what in my view, are measured submissions. They ask that in addition to the inevitable sentence of life imprisonment that a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years is imposed. I agree with that approach. It means that you will be 69 years of age before you are even eligible to appear before the parole board to be considered for release. When, and if, you are released will depend on your satisfying the parole board that you no longer pose a risk in the community. Mr Ruane made the point that there would be little utility in a longer minimum term than the period of 10 years. I agree. And, nor in my view, is there a basis for a longer term than that.

The sentence

[16] Would you stand up please.  Firstly, I direct that the pre-sentence report and the psychiatric report to which I have referred be carried to your personal file at the prison, so that the aspects which are discussed in those reports are available to the authorities for future reference.

[17] In relation to the crime of murder Mr Hoani, I hereby sentence you to life imprisonment. I direct that you are to serve a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years.

[18] You are subject to the three strike legislation recently enacted. The implications of this will be explained to you in a written warning which will be given to you, but I must mention it as well. In essence, were you to be released and commit a further serious violent offence, you would serve the resulting sentence without parole. Were you to take another life, you would be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.

[19]     You may stand down.

Solicitors:

P J Shamy, Christchurch

C E Butchard, Christchurch E C Bulger, Christchurch

C M Ruane, Christchurch