R v Jetson - [2025] NZHC 1022

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ANY PERSON(S) UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS WHO IS A COMPLAINANT OR WHO APPEARED AS A WITNESS

PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF IDENTIFIED PARTS OF THE EVIDENCE OR IDENTIFIED PARTS OF THE JUDGMENT IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2017-009-002687

[2025] NZHC 1022

THE KING

v

CYLE ROBERT JETSON

Hearing: 30 April 2025

Appearances:

D Elsmore for Crown

K J Gray and J M Grainger for Defendant

Sentencing notes:

30 April 2025

REDACTED SENTENCING NOTES OF EATON J

R v JETSON [2025] NZHC 1022 [30 April 2025]

Introduction

[1] Cyle Jetson, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to the murder of Pierclaudio Raviola.1

Factual background

[2] The facts of your offending have been captured in a prosecution summary of facts that you admit and accept as providing the essential foundation for assessing your culpability. I know the facts will be very familiar now to you, but sentencing is a public process, and it is important that I refer to those facts in open court.

[3] It is also important, particularly for those members of the media present, that I make it clear that any reference to the role of M in the offending is suppressed from publication in order to preserve her fair trial right.

[4] At the time of the offending back in March 2017, you were 20 years old and in a relationship with M who was then aged 15. Moses Hurrell was aged 16 in March 2017 and is Debra Tihema’s nephew.

[5] In the months leading up to the offending, Debra Tihema formed a relationship with Mr Raviola.

[6] Debra Tihema owed a debt and created a plan to rob Mr Raviola of his car in order to pay that debt. In the afternoon of 23 March 2017, Debra Tihema gathered you, M and Moses at her house to discuss the plan and ask the three of you to assist her in robbing the victim of his car.

[7] That evening, Debra Tihema invited Mr Raviola to visit her at her home address in Bromley, Christchurch. He arrived at her address as planned, and after an initial discussion he followed Debra to her bedroom. You and the other offenders, that is M and Moses, were hiding in the bedrooms at the property.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 66, 167, 168 and 172; maximum penalty life imprisonment.

[8] Once in Debra’s bedroom, there was an altercation between Mr Raviola and Debra Tihema. Angry shouting could be heard coming from her room. Moses entered the bedroom and punched the victim twice in the head. He then kicked him in the stomach. M had entered the bedroom, and she too began kicking Mr Raviola.

[9] You heard shouting coming from the bedroom and,…

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 Jetson

Details

AGLC: R v Jetson [2025] NZHC 1022
Case: [2025] NZHC 1022
Decision Date: 30 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jetson involved Cyle Jetson, who was charged with the murder of Pierclaudio Raviola. Jetson had previously been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of 11 years. However, his conviction was quashed by the Supreme Court, leading to a retrial. Jetson pleaded guilty to the charge of murder, relying on an agreed summary of facts and recent case law. The court had to determine whether a life sentence would be manifestly unjust given Jetson's age at the time of the offence, his role, and other personal mitigating factors. The court concluded that a life sentence would be manifestly unjust and sentenced Jetson to 11 years’ imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of six years.

The court identified several legal issues. The primary issue was whether it would be manifestly unjust to impose a life sentence on Jetson. The court found that it would be manifestly unjust to impose a life sentence due to Jetson's role as a lesser party to a felony murder, his age at the time of the offence, and other personal mitigating factors. The court also had to determine the appropriate starting point for a finite sentence and the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment. The court settled on a starting point of 24 years and a minimum period of imprisonment of six years.

The court reasoned that Jetson played a role as "muscle" in a plan to rob Mr Raviola, but he did not know about the presence of a weapon or foresee the possibility of death. The court found that Jetson's role, combined with his age at the time of the offence and other personal mitigating factors, made a life sentence manifestly unjust. The court also considered Jetson's youth and rehabilitative prospects, as well as his guilty plea, personal factors, and time spent on electronically monitored bail in determining the appropriate sentence. The court concluded that a sentence of 11 years' imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of six years, balanced the purposes of sentencing.

Orders