R v Jury - [2020] NZHC 2618

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2019-063-471

[2020] NZHC 2618

THE QUEEN

v

RAYMOND IVEAGH JURY

Hearing: 2 October 2020

Appearances:

M S Jenkins for Crown

W T Nabney for Defendant

Sentence:

2 October 2020

SENTENCE OF PAUL DAVISON J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Rotorua

R v JURY [2020] NZHC 2618 [2 October 2020]

Introduction

[1] Raymond Jury, at 58 years of age, you appear today for sentencing having been found guilty of murdering Trevor Rikihana on 30 January 2019.

[2] In sentencing you, I will first summarise the background and circumstances of your offending before turning to address your personal circumstances. I will then refer to the purposes and principles of sentencing and explain the approach I am required to take in sentencing you for the offence of murder. I will then summarise the submissions made by the Crown and your counsel as regards the sentence they submit should be imposed. Finally, I will outline the sentence I will impose. As part of this, I shall determine whether it would be manifestly unjust to impose a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of at least 17 years without parole.

Facts of the offending

[3] In the early hours of that morning you drove to a semi-rural address on Te Ngae Road in Rotorua where Mr Rikihana was living with his niece, Ms Lauren Eketone and her seven year old son. Mr Rikihana was 69 years old in January 2019. He was a man of slight stature, being 168 centimetres tall and weighing 49 kilograms.

[4] You and Mr Rikihana were both longstanding members of the Mongrel Mob gang and you and he knew each other well. You had stayed overnight at his place previously and no doubt regarded each other as friends, as well as fellow members of the Mongrel Mob. Upon your arrival Mr Rikihana, who was in his sleepout at the rear of the house, got up and the two of you went to the kitchen inside the main house to have something to eat and to talk.

[5] However, before long an argument developed between you which could be overheard by Ms Eketone. The argument was over money and repayment of a debt. The two of you then moved outside where you then attacked Mr Rikihana in what was a sustained and ferocious assault. The brutal and sustained nature of this assault is evident from the extent of the injuries you inflicted on Mr Rikihana and from which he died. Although the assault was not witnessed, it appears that it involved you using

a hammer to strike Mr Rikihana’s head and when Mr Rikihana was on the ground you then kicked and stomped on him repeatedly, stomping on his head. Ms Eketone, who was hiding nearby, could hear this taking place although she did not see it.

[6] Having rendered Mr Rikihana unable to resist you further, you then dragged 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 Jury

Details

AGLC: R v Jury [2020] NZHC 2618
Case: [2020] NZHC 2618
Decision Date: 2 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Raymond Jury was convicted of murdering Trevor Rikihana and appeared for sentencing. The offence involved a sustained and violent assault, where the defendant used a hammer to strike the victim's head and stomped on him while he was on the ground. The victim was a member of the same gang as the defendant, and the attack was over a debt repayment. The court considered the defendant's extensive criminal history, which included violent and sexual offences. The defendant also had a troubled upbringing involving abuse and family dysfunction.

The legal issues before the court were whether a sentence of life imprisonment was appropriate and whether it would be manifestly unjust to impose a minimum period of imprisonment of at least 17 years. The court found that the murder involved a high level of brutality and that the victim was particularly vulnerable, thus satisfying the criteria for a 17-year minimum term. The court also considered the defendant's background but found that it did not take his offending outside the scope of the legislative policy that such murders are sufficiently serious to warrant a 17-year minimum term. The court sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 17 years before he would be eligible to apply for parole.

Orders