R v Kelekolio - [2014] NZHC 1791

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

CRI-2012-209-000476 [2014] NZHC 1791

THE QUEEN

v

ALE BRONSON KELEKOLIO

Hearing:
31 July 2014

(Heard at Christchurch)

Appearances:

A R McRae for the Crown
J R Rapley for the Defendant

Judgment:

31 July 2014

SENTENCING REMARKS OF PANCKHURST J

Introduction

[1] Sadly, at 17 and a half years of age, I must sentence you to in relation to offences of murder and unlawful sexual connection by digital penetration. Your victim, Sina Solomona, was only 22 years of age when she died. Like you, she resided in Ashburton. She was a mother of a young daughter and she was employed at a local meat processing plant. She was well known to you. Your father and her mother lived together in an extended family. You were a frequent visitor to that home. You lived nearby with your aunt and sister, but a few hundred metres away from Sina’s home.

The factual background

[2] On the relevant day Sina Solomona worked a late shift. She finished work at about 1.00 am on Saturday morning, 15 December 2012. She was driven to a

R v KELEKOLIO [2014] NZHC 1791 [31 July 2014]

friend’s house by a workmate. Later she contacted a family member and asked that person to pick her and another woman up from the address where they were. When the car arrived, you were a passenger in it. In the course of the journey there was conversation, as a result of which it became clear that Sina was about to return to a home where there was nobody present. Her extended family were elsewhere making preparations for a celebration which was to occur later that day.

[3] You were dropped home first, followed by Sina. She, therefore, found herself alone in that house. She sent a text to her partner; he responded. The last text message was one he sent at 2.26 am. She did not reply. Meanwhile, you had gone into your home and had been seen by both your aunt and your sister. You consumed a quantity of alcohol, but after 10 minutes or so you went out again. We now know that you returned to Sina’s house. The exact sequence of events is necessarily a matter of reconstruction from what you have told the police and from the silent evidence that has been unearthed as a result of the police investigation.

[4] It is plain that Sina was attacked with a knife. She was stabbed repeatedly with a pointed kitchen knife. Likely following that attack, her throat was cut with a serrated breadknife. The two knives came from a kitchen drawer in the house. The pointed knife was broken in the course of the attack. That attack occurred in the back porch area of the house. Sina’s body was later located there. Needless to say, there was extensive blood staining, including splatters on adjacent walls in the general vicinity.

[5] A forensic scientist readily concluded that these were consistent 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 Kelekolio

Details

AGLC: R v Kelekolio [2014] NZHC 1791
Case: [2014] NZHC 1791
Decision Date: 31 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Kelekolio was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Timaru Registry. The defendant, Ale Bronson Kelekolio, was convicted of the murder of Sina Solomona and unlawful sexual connection by digital penetration. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for these crimes, considering the defendant's age, immaturity, and personal circumstances, as well as the nature and severity of the offences.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for the minimum non-parole period, considering the aggravating factors of the crime such as high levels of brutality, unlawful entry, and the commission of the murder during the course of another offence. The court also had to balance these factors against the defendant's age and immaturity, his guilty plea, and his potential for rehabilitation.

The court found that the starting point for the minimum non-parole period should be 17 years, given the severity of the crimes. However, after considering the defendant's age, immaturity, and the fact that he had entered a plea of guilty (albeit later withdrawn), the court decided that a minimum period of 14 years and six months was appropriate. The court acknowledged the profound impact of the crimes on the victim's family and the community.

The final orders of the court were that Ale Bronson Kelekolio be sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Sina Solomona and four years' imprisonment for the crime of unlawful sexual connection. The defendant was to serve a minimum period of 14 and a half years before being considered for parole. The court also lifted the interim suppression order in relation to the defendant's name and amended the suppression order to prohibit publication until any appeal was resolved.

Orders