R v K

Case [2020] NZHC 233 21 February 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-004-011138

[2020] NZHC 233

THE QUEEN

v

“K”

Hearing: 21 February 2020

Appearances:

B H Dickey, R M A McCoubrey, A L V Tuiburelevu for the Crown I M Brookie, R M Mansfield and C G Farquhar for the Defendant

Date:

21 February 2020

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MOORE J

R v “K” [2020] NZHC 233 [21 February 2020]

Introduction

[1] “K”, at the age of 27, you appear before me to be sentenced for the murder of Grace Emmie Rose Millane. On 22 November last year a jury of 12 found you guilty of her murder. I entered a conviction and remanded you to today for sentence.

Structure

[2] Before I start my sentencing remarks it may be helpful to you, the media and, through them, the public to explain how I propose to structure my sentencing remarks. There will be four main parts.

(a)First, I shall start with a description of the facts. Of course, the facts will be well known to you. The jury’s verdict necessarily means that it rejected some aspects of your defence. An obvious example was your claim that Ms Millane consented to you putting your hands around her neck and applying and sustaining the level of pressure which led to her death. Had they accepted that, you would have been acquitted. But they did not. That is plain from their verdict. However, the jury’s verdict does not reveal how they may have treated other parts of the evidence which are now relevant for sentencing purposes. On those aspects I must, as the trial Judge who heard and saw all the evidence, come to my own conclusions. Where those conclusions make an assessment of your offending worse, what we call aggravating factors, I must be satisfied to the high criminal standard.

(b)After I have dealt with the facts, I shall briefly discuss the victim impact statements which have been prepared by Ms Millane’s immediate and extended family as well as her many friends. I shall also refer to the pre-sentence report, the cultural report and the letters written in your support.

(c)Next I shall cover your personal circumstances.

(d)And then in the fourth and final part I shall discuss what the law requires when someone is sentenced for murder. In your case life imprisonment must be imposed. The significant issue, and the one which I must decide, is the length of the minimum period of imprisonment or MPI. That is where the real contest in this sentence lies. The Crown says that yours is a case which requires an MPI of at least 17 years. Your defence says that facts of the case fall short of requiring an MPI of that order. Mr Brookie says a 12 year MPI starting point should be set with a one year reduction for mitigating factors. To a considerable extent the resolution of that issue rests on what findings of fact…

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 K

Details

AGLC: R v K [2020] NZHC 233
Case: [2020] NZHC 233
Decision Date: 21 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v K involved the sentencing of the defendant, K, who had been found guilty of the murder of Grace Emmie Rose Millane. The court was required to determine the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) for K, with life imprisonment being the mandatory sentence for murder. The Crown argued for an MPI of at least 17 years, citing the brutal, cruel, depraved, and callous nature of the murder, the vulnerability of the victim, the defendant's conduct after the murder, and his lies to the police. The defence argued for a 12-year starting point, with a one-year reduction for mitigating factors, such as the defendant's personal circumstances and lack of prior convictions.

In determining the MPI, the court considered the facts of the case, including the nature of the offence, the vulnerability of the victim, and the defendant's conduct after the murder. The court found that the defendant's actions after the murder, such as taking explicit photographs of the victim and searching for ways to dispose of her body, demonstrated a high degree of callousness and depravity. The court also found that the defendant's conduct, including the manual strangulation of the victim, met the threshold of a high level of brutality, cruelty, depravity, or callousness. As a result, the court imposed an MPI of 17 years, in line with the Crown's submission.

The final orders of the court were that K be sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years. K would not be eligible for parole consideration until he had served 17 years in prison, at which point the Parole Board would assess whether he still posed a risk to the public.

Orders