R v Joyce - [2022] NZHC 1083

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2021-009-269

[2022] NZHC 1083

THE QUEEN

v

RENA JOYCE

Hearing: 17 May 2022

Appearances:

P A Currie and P N M Brown for Crown R A Peters for Defendant

Judgment:

17 May 2022

SENTENCING REMARKS OF EATON J

Introduction

[1] Rena Joyce, you appear for sentencing today having been found guilty by the jury of the murder of your de facto partner Martin Berry.1 You can remain seated while I conclude my sentencing remarks, but I will ask you to stand when I formally impose sentence.

[2] I am sure you understand that the statute that governs the sentencing of a person convicted of murder requires that I sentence you to life imprisonment unless it would be manifestly unjust to do so.2 It is not suggested that exception applies in your

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 167(b) and 172. Maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
2 Sentencing Act 2002, s 102(1).

R v JOYCE [2022] NZHC 1083 [17 May 2022]

case. The focus of this sentencing is the minimum period of imprisonment (what is called the MPI) that you must serve before you can be considered for parole.

[3] I will summarise the facts of the offending. The facts will be well known to you and others who are participating in this hearing today. But because sentencing is a public process it is important that the broader public are aware of the basis upon which I am sentencing you today.

The facts

[4] You met Martin Berry through his brother in about 2016 and you forged a relationship, and about six months later you moved in together at his property here in Christchurch.

[5] You were both alcoholics. Each of you were employed intermittently throughout the course of your relationship. Your relationship was one marred by regular drunken acts of violence perpetuated predominantly by you on Mr Berry but also, I accept, by him on you. This led to you being convicted on three distinct occasions for varying levels of assault against Mr Berry in 2018 and 2019. He was charged and convicted for a serious assault on you in 2018.

[6] On 29 December 2020 you and Mr Berry had lunch at a local restaurant with his brother, David, and his partner, Pearl. At that lunch there was no inkling of what was to later occur. You say there was conversation about David having left a dog in a vehicle and that that made you very upset and angry. You returned to Mr Berry’s property in the late afternoon. It was several hours later that the incident that gave rise to your conviction for murder arose. I accept there was an argument of sorts between the two of you and I accept it is likely that that involved Mr Berry’s cannabis use.

[7] Whatever that argument was about in terms of detail, you became enraged and, in your words, you lost it, you snapped,…

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 Joyce

Details

AGLC: R v Joyce [2022] NZHC 1083
Case: [2022] NZHC 1083
Decision Date: 17 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Rena Joyce was sentenced for the murder of Martin Berry. The court had to determine the minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) that Joyce must serve before being considered for parole. The court considered various factors, including the aggravating and mitigating features of the offence, and compared the case with other similar cases. The court found that the murder was the result of an escalating pattern of domestic violence perpetrated by Joyce, and that her actions after the murder demonstrated a high level of cruelty. The court also considered Joyce's personal circumstances, including her history of alcohol abuse and exposure to violence in her childhood. The court concluded that the MPI should be 13 years and nine months, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors and the comparison with other cases. The court sentenced Joyce to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 13 years and nine months.

The court emphasised that the sentence of life imprisonment meant that Joyce must spend the rest of her life in prison unless and until the Parole Board determined that she could be safely released into the community. The fixing of a minimum term did not mean that she would be released on parole when that period expired, but rather set the period which must elapse before the Parole Board could consider her release.

Orders