R v Huntley - [2024] NZHC 182

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-292-000575

[2024] NZHC 182

THE KING

v

SOLDIER HUNTLEY

Hearing: 15 February 2024

Counsel:

Gareth Kayes and Charlotte Best for the Crown Jonathan Hudson for the Defendant

Judgment:

15 February 2024

SENTENCING NOTES OF MOORE J

R v HUNTLEY [2024] NZHC 182 [15 February 2024]

Introduction

[1] Soldier Huntley, at the age of 19, you appear for sentence for the murder of Taeao Ola,1 and two charges of wounding Reupena Tomasi and Covette Tuaumu with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.2

[2] On 6 December 2023, I gave you a sentence indication.3 Given the extensive material before me which included victim impact statements, a detailed cultural report and Oranga Tamariki records, I indicated that I had decided a sentence of life imprisonment would be manifestly unjust and that an appropriate end sentence was a determinate sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of eight years. I indicated that if you pleaded guilty, the Court would order a pre-sentence report. However, I said that I considered that because I had read such a wealth of information about you it was unlikely that any pre-sentence report would materially change the conclusions reached in my indication.

[3] Through your counsel Mr Hudson, you accepted my indication on 14 December 2023. The next day you appeared before me for arraignment and pleaded guilty to all charges. I entered convictions and ordered a pre-sentence report. I have now read that report. As I expected and for reasons I will later develop, I do not consider that the contents of that report materially change my sentence indication which means I shall sentence you in accordance with that indication.

Facts

[4] The facts of your offending are well known to you. They are contained in a summary of facts and you have agreed they are correct. That is the basis on which I shall sentence you. I set the facts out when I gave you the sentence indication. However, unless the Court gives permission to publish the contents of a sentence indication, the reasons are automatically suppressed. Furthermore, because sentencing is quintessentially a public function and must be conducted in open Court and may be

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 167 and 172; maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2      Section 188(1); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      R v Huntley [2023] NZHC 3547.

reported, it is necessary for me, in this public forum, to repeat the facts. They are these.

[5] In the early hours of Sunday, 13 November 2022, approximately 50 people were gathered in a car park on Lady Fisher Place in East Tāmaki. They were celebrating Samoa’s success in the Rugby League World Cup.

[6] Shortly before 4:00 am, you turned up in your car. A number of your associates arrived before you. You were armed with a 30-centimetre kitchen knife, with a blade of about half that length.

Wounding with…

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 Huntley

Details

AGLC: R v Huntley [2024] NZHC 182
Case: [2024] NZHC 182
Decision Date: 15 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of R v Huntley revolves around the defendant, Soldier Huntley, who stands convicted for the murder of Taeao Ola and two charges of wounding Reupena Tomasi and Covette Tuaumu with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The defendant pleaded guilty to all charges, accepting the sentence indication given by the court on 6 December 2023, which proposed a determinate sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of eight years. The court ordered a pre-sentence report, which has now been read and considered, but does not materially alter the original sentence indication.

The legal issues the court needed to decide involved whether life imprisonment would be manifestly unjust in light of the defendant's personal circumstances and the nature of the offending. The court found that while the offence was serious, factors such as the defendant's age, his immature and developing brain at the time of the offence, his background marred by violence, deprivation, and neglect, and his potential for rehabilitation, made a sentence of life imprisonment manifestly unjust. The court also considered the aggravating factors of premeditation, hostility towards Samoan ethnicity, association with a street gang, and the defendant's post-offending conduct, which exhibited cruelty and callousness.

In sentencing, the court acknowledged the profound loss suffered by the victims' families and friends and the devastating impact of the defendant's actions. The court imposed a sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment for the murder charge, with a MPI of eight years, and seven years’ imprisonment for each charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, all sentences to be served concurrently. The court urged the defendant to use his time in prison constructively to improve himself and re-enter society as a positive and contributing citizen upon his release.

Orders