R v Hulbert - [2024] NZHC 1228

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2022-070-2205

[2024] NZHC 1228

THE KING

v

QUAYDE RICHARD DEAN HULBERT BILLY TAMA RIELLY

Appearances:
A J Pollett and H J Speight for Crown T F Rickard-Simms for Mr Hulbert

R E Nabney and W T Nabney for Mr Rielly

Sentence:

16 May 2024

SENTENCING OF COOKE J

[1] Quayde Hulbert, Billy Rielly, it is now my job to sentence you for the murder of Eli Johnson. In explaining the sentence that I am going to impose I will do three things:

(a)first, I will describe the facts of the offending;

(b)second, I will explain what the law says about sentencing you for the offence of murder in the circumstances of this case, and how what the law says influences the sentence that I will impose for each of you;

(c)then third, I will outline your personal circumstances and how that affects the sentence that I should impose.

R v HULBERT & RIELLY [2024] NZHC 1228 [16 May 2024]

The offending

[2] First, I will describe the facts of the offending that arise from the evidence at your trial leading to the guilty verdicts from the jury. That is based on my assessment of the evidence.

[3] The victim of your offending, Eli Johnson, was known to both of you. He was particularly known to you Mr Hulbert as he had been a childhood friend.

[4] All three of you were associated with the Mongrel Mob gang. At the time of the offence you were a patched member Mr Hulbert, and Mr Rielly was your prospect. Mr Johnson had himself wanted to join the gang at one point and had been a prospect. Unfortunately for Mr Johnson he got himself involved in a situation where he was a prospect for Mr Rewiri, the captain of the Mongrel Mob Aotearoa Tauranga Chapter. Mr Rewiri was later charged with a drug offence as well as an offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The attempting to pervert charge arose from pressure being applied to Mr Johnson that he accept responsibility for the drug offending in place of Mr Rewiri. That case went to trial in March 2021 and Mr Johnson effectively gave evidence against Mr Rewiri. Mr Rewiri was found not guilty of the drug offending, but guilty of the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

[5] The fact that Mr Johnson had effectively provided evidence against Mr Rewiri was the motivation for your offending. After Mr Johnson had given this evidence, he said to his mother that he was a dead man. Giving such evidence against a Mongrel Mob member, particularly the captain of the chapter, is contrary to the expectations of the Mongrel Mob.

[6] The two of you were the ones that undertook the expected response by implementing the plan to murder Mr Johnson.

[7] The week before he was murdered you made contact with him.…

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 Hulbert

Details

AGLC: R v Hulbert [2024] NZHC 1228
Case: [2024] NZHC 1228
Decision Date: 16 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Rotorua Registry, the case of R v Hulbert and Rielly involves the sentencing of Quayde Richard Dean Hulbert and Billy Tama Rielly for the premeditated murder of Eli Johnson, who was associated with the same gang, the Mongrel Mob, as the two defendants. Hulbert, a patched member, and Rielly, a prospect, killed Johnson in retaliation for his giving evidence against a gang leader. The case presented several legal issues, including determining the appropriate sentence for murder under the Sentencing Act 2002, and whether the circumstances warranted a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) longer than the statutory minimum of 10 years. The court considered multiple aggravating factors, such as the premeditated nature of the crime, the gang-related motivation, and the retribution for Johnson’s testimony. The court found that these factors justified an MPI longer than 17 years unless it was manifestly unjust to do so. The judge assessed that the circumstances warranted an MPI of 19 years for Hulbert and 18 years for Rielly, after considering mitigating factors such as their difficult upbringings and personal circumstances. The final sentence imposed was life imprisonment for both defendants, with Hulbert facing a minimum period of 18 years and Rielly facing 17 years before being eligible for parole consideration.

This ruling underscores the gravity of gang-related violence and the severe consequences for those who engage in such acts, particularly when they undermine the criminal justice system. The court's decision highlights the importance of accountability and deterrence in such cases, while also acknowledging the complex backgrounds of the offenders.

Orders