R v Kipa - [2023] NZHC 1642

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2021-004-006449

[2023] NZHC 1642

THE KING

v

BRADFORD DAMIAN KIPA

Hearing: 29 June 2023

Appearances:

S McMullan for Crown T J Darby for Defendant

Sentenced:

29 June 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland Counsel: T Darby, Auckland

R v KIPA [2023] NZHC 1642 [29 June 2023]

[1] Bradford Kipa, you are for sentence having pleaded guilty to the murder of John Ioane. On 23 August 2021 you stabbed Mr Ioane to death.

[2] There are two principal issues for the Court to consider regarding your sentence this morning. The first and most important is whether it would be manifestly unjust to impose the sentence of life imprisonment for murder; and if not, and life imprisonment is imposed, what the minimum non-parole period should be. I start with the facts.

[3] You and your wife had been in a relationship for 10 years and had recently married about three months before you killed Mr Ioane. You lived in Panmure.

[4] Mr Ioane was one of your wife’s work colleagues. They had known each other since December 2020 and apparently had formed an intimate relationship shortly after meeting. You had met Mr Ioane and were aware who he was.

[5] At about 5.00 pm on Monday, 23 August 2021, you were at your home in Panmure together with your wife and mother-in-law. You had been drinking alcohol during the afternoon. For some time you suspected your wife was being unfaithful. When you raised the matter with her, she told you she had kissed another man. You became enraged and an argument ensued. During the argument you said words to the effect of “You lied to me again … I loved you so much … You went and did this to me … You didn’t take your vows seriously … Is this what you think of our marriage?”. Your wife had her phone in her hand and was messaging a work group chat on Facebook Messenger at the time. You forcibly took the phone from her, took it outside and smashed it against the air conditioning unit on the wall of your unit.

[6] At about 6.25 pm your wife used her work phone to message Mr Ioane. They exchanged a number of text messages between 6.25 and 6.32 pm. She told him you had broken her phone and also that she had told you she had cheated on you. She also said she had got a hiding. Mr Ioane responded, “Oh shit what happened … You ok? Everything ok … Wtf I’m coming over … Shit wtf … Want me to pick you up …

Should I come over or not the cunt shouldn’t lay a hand on you or any woman”. Your wife texted Mr Ioane that everything was ok and not to come over.

[7] When you saw her texting Mr Ioane you took the phone from her.…

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 Kipa

Details

AGLC: R v Kipa [2023] NZHC 1642
Case: [2023] NZHC 1642
Decision Date: 29 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bradford Kipa was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand for the murder of John Ioane, which he committed by stabbing him multiple times on 23 August 2021. The central issues before the court were whether it would be manifestly unjust to impose a sentence of life imprisonment for murder and, if not, determining the appropriate minimum non-parole period. The court considered the gravity of the offence, Kipa's culpability, and his personal circumstances. The court found Kipa's culpability to be high, noting that he had armed himself with a knife and attacked an unarmed man deliberately and with intent to cause serious bodily harm, despite having ample time to cool down after discovering his wife's infidelity. The court rejected submissions that the provocation or potential mental impairments mitigated Kipa's culpability sufficiently to warrant a sentence other than life imprisonment. Instead, the court concluded that life imprisonment was appropriate, and it set the minimum non-parole period at ten years.

The reasoning of the court hinged on the deliberate nature of Kipa's actions, the severity of his attack, and the absence of exceptional circumstances that would render a life sentence manifestly unjust. The court emphasised that while provocation might be a factor to consider in determining the minimum non-parole period, it did not reduce Kipa's culpability to the level of manslaughter. The court also noted that voluntary intoxication could not be considered as a mitigating factor. Therefore, the threshold for finding a life sentence manifestly unjust was not met. The court ultimately decided on a minimum non-parole period of ten years, taking into account Kipa's remorse and the time he spent on electronic monitoring bail, but adjusting for the delay in his guilty plea. Kipa was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of ten years.

Orders