R v Holl - [2014] NZHC 1655

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND BLENHEIM REGISTRY

CRI-2013-006-000037 [2014] NZHC 1655

THE QUEEN

v

JANELLE AMANDA HOLL

Counsel:
M A O'Donoghue for Crown

J H M Eaton QC for Prisoner

Sentence:

18 July 2014

NOTES ON SENTENCE OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Mrs Holl, on 2 May 2014 you pleaded guilty to murdering Robyn Grace, who was the mother of your husband, David Holl. Ms Grace is described as being a short and slightly built woman.1 On 7 November 2013, I sentenced David Holl to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 15 years for his role in the murder of Ms Grace. The sentence imposed on David Holl included a period of
18 months’ imprisonment for other offending. The starting point I adopted when

sentencing David Holl for murder was 17 years’ imprisonment.

[2] Mr Eaton QC accepts you must be sentenced to life imprisonment. The only issue is how long you should serve in prison before being considered eligible for parole. Mr Eaton suggests 10 years. The Crown suggests somewhere between 13 to
13½ years.

1 Ms Grace was 5 foot 3 inches tall and weighed 53 kilograms.

R v HOLL [2014] NZHC 1655 [18 July 2014]

[3] In sentencing you, I shall:

(1) explain your offending;

(2)explain the requirements for a 17 year minimum period of imprisonment for murder;

(3) explain the starting point I am going to use when sentencing you;

(4)explain the adjustment that I am going to make to that starting point to reflect:

(a) your guilty plea;

(b) your mental status;

(c) your previous good character; and

(d) your remorse.

Your offending

[4] On 5 January 2013, you and David Holl moved to Picton to live with Ms Grace. It was intended this would be a temporary arrangement while you and David Holl found a place of your own in which to live.

[5] Tensions began to develop between Ms Grace, David Holl and yourself. Those matters became so strained that on 13 January 2013 Ms Grace told you and David Holl to move out of her home and that she was looking for an alternative place for you and David Holl to stay. Ms Grace then left her home for approximately one hour.

[6] After Ms Grace left her home David Holl told you about how he planned to kill Ms Grace when she returned home. When you spoke to the police on 13 January
2013 you were asked:2

What did [David Holl] ask of you?

You replied “Um kind of asked me to help him but I wanted to help him …”.

David Holl told you the plan included dismembering Ms Grace’s body and burning her body parts in the fireplace of the house.3 To fulfil this plan David Holl located an axe and placed items in a plastic bag. Those items were a skipping rope, a nylon cord, masking tape, a pillow case and a lighter.

[7] At approximately 4.00 pm Ms Grace returned home. When…

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 Holl

Details

AGLC: R v Holl [2014] NZHC 1655
Case: [2014] NZHC 1655
Decision Date: 18 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of The Queen versus Janelle Amanda Holl addressed the sentencing of the defendant for her role in the murder of Robyn Grace, the mother of her husband, David Holl. Janelle Amanda Holl pleaded guilty to her involvement in the brutal murder, which included multiple blows to the victim's head, face, and chest with an axe. David Holl had already been sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum of 15 years for his part in the crime. The primary issue for the court was to determine the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment for Janelle Amanda Holl before she could be considered eligible for parole.

The court began by outlining the circumstances of the murder, emphasizing the brutality and premeditation involved. It noted that the murder was carried out with a high degree of brutality and involved significant planning. The starting point for sentencing was set at 17 years, given these factors. The court then considered several mitigating factors, including Holl's guilty plea, her mental health issues, her previous good character, and her expression of remorse. These factors warranted a reduction from the starting point. The court applied a provisional discount for her guilty plea of 18 months, a six-month discount for her mental health issues, a 15-month discount for her previous good character, and a three-month discount for her remorse.

After considering all these factors, the court determined that imposing a 17-year minimum period of imprisonment would be manifestly unjust. Instead, it sentenced Janelle Amanda Holl to life imprisonment with a minimum period of 13 years and six months before she could be considered eligible for parole. This sentence aligned with the minimum period imposed on David Holl for his role in the murder. The court also issued a three strikes warning to Holl, indicating that any serious violent offence committed after this warning would result in a sentence without parole or early release.

Orders