R v Hone - [2018] NZHC 2605

THIS IS A REDACTED VERSION.

ORDER RESTRICTING REFERENCES TO ALLEGED ASSOCIATES AND PROHIBITING PUBLICATION AND DETAILS OF ALLEGED ASSOCIATES UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA
TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2017-063-003504 [2018] NZHC 2605

THE QUEEN

V

MARTIN HONE

Hearing: 5 October 2018

Appearances:

A Hill for the Crown
W Lawson for Defendant

Sentenced:

5 October 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors:
Lance Lawson, Rotorua
Crown Solicitor, Rotorua

R v HONE [2018] NZHC 2605 [5 October 2018]

[1] Mr Hone you may remain seated. I will tell you when you need to stand.

[2] You are for sentence this morning in this Court in relation to two charges of murder, two of threatening to kill and one charge of manufacturing methamphetamine.

[3] At the outset, I acknowledge the presence of members of the victims’ families in Court. This morning I have heard the victim impact statement read by Ms Bronwyn Fleet but I have also read and considered the other victim impact statements that are on the file. As the Sentencing Act 2002 requires I have taken into account the effect Mr Hone’s actions have had on you. The sentence I impose, and I want you to understand if at all possible, is imposed on behalf of the community in response to the serious offending that will be detailed. It is not meant to be and it never could be a measure of the value of Raymond and James’ lives. In the course of the sentence it will be necessary for me to refer to the details which will be distressing to you. But I must refer to the relevant circumstances in open Court as part of this Court’s public function in sentencing Mr Hone.

[4] I now deal with some preliminary matters.

Preliminary matters

[5] Mr Hone, you pleaded guilty to these charges following the sentence indication. As counsel noted in the pre-sentence report for today there is a suggestion that when the probation officer spoke to you, you denied being involved in the assault on the victims which led to their deaths. Counsel has clarified that with you. I understand you say that you told the writer that you pleaded guilty on advice and there was a miscommunication. Mr Lawson has confirmed to the Court the decision to plead guilty was your decision on advice and you are ready to proceed to sentencing on the basis of the guilty pleas entered.

[6] Next, counsel filed a memorandum seeking an adjournment of the sentencing to enable preparation of a “section 27 report”. I declined that application. The provisions of s 27 of the Sentencing Act are clear. An offender may request the Court to hear from any person called by them to speak on matters referred to under s 27(1). Under s 27(5) the Court may also suggest it would be assisted to hear from such a

person called by the offender on any of the…

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 Hone

Details

AGLC: R v Hone [2018] NZHC 2605
Case: [2018] NZHC 2605
Decision Date: 5 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Martin Hone was sentenced by Venning J in the Rotorua Registry of the High Court of New Zealand for two charges of murder, two of threatening to kill, and one of manufacturing methamphetamine. Hone had pleaded guilty to the charges. The court declined a request for an adjournment to prepare a cultural report, noting that the pre-sentence report and psychiatric assessment provided sufficient information. Hone's attendance in court was ordered despite his medical conditions, as sentencing for serious offences such as homicide should occur in person. The court found Hone's actions to be driven by paranoia regarding the yield of a methamphetamine manufacturing operation. Hone and his associates assaulted and killed Raymond and James Fleet over suspicions that some of the drug had been stolen. The court considered the three strikes law, which mandates life imprisonment without parole for a second strike offence unless it would be manifestly unjust. The court found that it would be manifestly unjust to sentence Hone to life without parole due to his PTSD diagnosis, the fact that this was a second-stage murder, and his guilty plea. The court imposed a minimum non-parole period of 20 years for each murder charge, seven years concurrent for methamphetamine manufacturing, and two years concurrent for each charge of threatening to kill.

Orders