[1] Mr Kingi, you appear for sentence today having entered a guilty plea to a charge of murder pursuant to ss 172 and 168 of the Crimes Act 1961. The maximum penalty for this offence is one of life imprisonment.

[2] A conviction was entered against you following your plea. That occurred on

1 September 2015. Two other more minor charges were then withdrawn.

[3] Your sentencing triggers s 86E of the Sentencing Act 2002. That section is

part of the “three strikes” regime introduced into the Sentencing Act as from 1 June

2010.

[4] The statutory three strikes regime applies because, on 11 April 2014, you were convicted and sentenced on a charge of robbery in the District Court at Palmerston North. You were given a first strike warning pursuant to s 86B of the
Act.

R v KINGI [2016] NZHC 139 [11 February 2016]

[5] Your conviction for murder is a stage 2 offence, with the consequence that s

86E of the Sentencing Act applies. That section requires that you must now be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, unless it would be manifestly unjust to do so. If I find that it is manifestly unjust to impose on you a sentence of life imprisonment without parole, s 86E(4)(b) requires me to impose a sentence with a minimum non-parole period of at least 10 years in accordance with s 103 of the Sentencing Act. That section in turn requires me to take into account s 104 of the Act.

Relevant Facts

[6] You do not dispute the summary of facts.

[7] On Monday 10 August 2015 you had been consuming alcohol, cannabis and synthetic cannabis. In the evening you travelled to a liquor store on Peachgrove Road in Hamilton, where a one litre bottle of Jim Beam was purchased and given to you. You then returned to Victoria Street in the central city. You proceeded to walk around the CBD in the company of two female associates. As you were walking along Victoria Street, you were confrontational and aggressive to members of the public.

[8] By about 8.40pm, you had progressed to London Street. You parked your motor vehicle in that street. At this stage you saw the victim, a 71 year old male. He had parked his car outside a public toilet. The victim was not known to you. You said to your female associates that you were going to “gank” the victim. The term “gank” apparently means to rob.

[9] You and your two associates approached the victim while he was sitting in his vehicle. You asked him for money and food. He told you that he had no food. You walked away, but you were agitated at his response.

[10] The…

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 [2016] NZHC 139
Case: [2016] NZHC 139
Decision Date: 11 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Turei Rawiri Kingi, was convicted of murder and sentenced by Wylie J in the High Court of New Zealand, Hamilton Registry. Kingi had entered a guilty plea to the charge of murder, which was pursuant to sections 172 and 168 of the Crimes Act 1961. The statutory three strikes regime applied to the sentencing of Kingi because he had previously been convicted and sentenced for robbery in the District Court at Palmerston North. This prior conviction triggered the three strikes regime, which mandates that Kingi be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for his current offence of murder, unless it would be manifestly unjust to do so.

The legal issues before the court were whether it would be manifestly unjust to sentence Kingi to life imprisonment without parole, and if not, what the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment should be. The court considered various factors, including the circumstances of the offence, Kingi's mental health, his guilty plea, his expressed remorse, his prospects of rehabilitation, and the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act.

The court concluded that it would be manifestly unjust to sentence Kingi to life imprisonment without parole. Factors such as Kingi's age, the relatively minor nature of his first strike offence, his mental health issues, his guilty plea, his expressed remorse, and his prospects of rehabilitation all contributed to this decision. The court found that a sentence of life imprisonment without parole would be disproportionate and excessively punitive, and not in line with the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act.

As a result, the court sentenced Kingi to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 13 years. This decision took into account the various mitigating factors present in Kingi's case, while also ensuring that the sentence adequately addressed the harm caused by his offending and protected the community.

Orders