R v Kingi - [2025] NZHC 343

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2022-088-002331

[2025] NZHC 343

THE KING

v

IKE WELLINGTON KINGI LEONIE FARRELL

STACY ROBERT JAMIESON

Hearing: 28 February 2025

Appearances:

R B Annandale and J P Hamber for Crown S-L Litt for Ike Kingi

A M M Ives and C S Taylor for Leonie Farrell J A Young for Stacy Jamieson

Sentence:

28 February 2025

SENTENCES OF JOHNSTONE J

Solicitors:
MWIS, Whangārei

R v KINGI & ORS [2025] NZHC 343 [28 February 2025]

[1] Mr Kingi, Ms Farrell and Mr Jamieson, I am sentencing you now of course for the offences of which a jury on 8 November last year found you guilty, all of them relating to the death of Mr Kleiman.

What happened

[2] In October 2022, Mr Kingi and Ms Farrell, you were renovating a house at 24 Edge Street, Onerahi, so that you might then live in it with your seven-week-old daughter. Mr Kleiman, a house decorator by trade, had been assisting with the renovation.

[3] At around 5.35 pm on Wednesday, 26 October 2022, Mr Kleiman drove to the house where, Mr Kingi, you had been for much of the afternoon. At around 7.18 pm, you were together inside. Ms Farrell, you were in your Nissan Navara ute, parked outside the house. And Mr Jamieson, you were in or near a garage alongside the house.

[4] At this point, Mr Kingi, you shot Mr Kleiman using a high-powered rifle. The projectile passed through the corner of Mr Kleiman’s mouth and then across his lower brain cavity before exiting the back of his head. Mr Kleiman died almost instantly.
You had murdered him.1

[5] I will come back to what happened in the moments after, and in the days after, you shot Mr Kleiman. But I will mention now that it was during the morning of the following Monday, 31 October 2022, that you went with your lawyer to the Whangārei Police Station and gave a statement in which you described what happened as an accident. You sought to explain that, although you were holding the gun when it fired, you had not intended to fire it. Instead, you said that the gun simply went off as you went to sit down on a couch. You implied that the gun must have just happened to have been pointing at Mr Kleiman.

[6] Mr Kingi, I understand that, even now, you maintain it was an accident. But the jury who heard your account at your trial were sure it is untrue. The jury decided

1 Charge 1 of the Crown Charge Notice at the time of verdicts. Crimes Act 1961, s 172. Maximum penalty: life imprisonment.

that when Mr Kleiman was shot you either intended to kill him, or you intended to cause him serious harm and were prepared to take the risk of him dying.

[7] Having heard the same evidence that the jury heard, I am not surprised…

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 Kingi

Details

AGLC: R v Kingi [2025] NZHC 343
Case: [2025] NZHC 343
Decision Date: 28 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Kingi involved the sentencing of Ike Wellington Kingi, Leonie Farrell, and Stacy Robert Jamieson following their convictions for offenses related to the death of Mr. Kleiman. The court was tasked with determining appropriate sentences for each defendant, considering the nature of their involvement in the crime and subsequent attempts to interfere with the judicial process. The primary legal issues were the severity and culpability of the defendants' actions, and how best to balance punishment with considerations of individual circumstances and the need for deterrence and community protection. The court deliberated on the appropriate sentence for each defendant, taking into account the gravity of their offenses, their personal backgrounds, and the impact of their actions on the victim’s family. For Leonie Farrell, the court determined a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment for her attempts and conspiracies to pervert the course of justice, adjusted upwards due to her being on bail at the time of sentencing. Considering her personal circumstances and responsibilities, the court sentenced her to six months’ home detention. Stacy Jamieson, who disposed of the murder weapon, received a starting point of 27 months’ imprisonment for his actions, uplifted by three months due to his failure to comply with release conditions. After reductions for time already spent on bail and his efforts toward rehabilitation, he was sentenced to 10 months’ home detention. Ike Wellington Kingi, convicted of murder, was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of 11.5 years, reflecting the brutality and callousness of his actions, his history of violence, and his attempts to manipulate evidence post-crime. His conspiracies to pervert the course of justice resulted in a concurrent sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment.

Orders