R v Kiro - [2024] NZHC 853

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

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

CRI-2023-027-000469

[2024] NZHC 853

THE KING

v

TERRANCE LOWE KIRO

Hearing: 23 April 2024

Appearances:

R Annandale, A J Goodwin for the Crown C Cull KC for the Terrance Lowe Kiro

Judgment:

23 April 2024

SENTENCING NOTES OF WHATA J

Solicitors:
Marsden, Woods, Inskip, Smith, (MWIS), Whangarei C Cull, Kaikohe | KeriKeri

R v KIRO [2024] NZHC 853 [23 April 2024]

[1] Mr Kiro you have pleaded guilty to one charge of manslaughter, one charge of burglary, and two charges of aggravated assault. I must now sentence you for this offending.

The victims

[2] Before I do so, I want to acknowledge the victims of your offending, including the deceased, Linda Woods, her whānau, her hapu and her friends. I know she was a much-loved mother, grandmother and whanaunga. The victim impact statements are testament to this. She raised her six children as a solo mum, and she has a special relationship with all of her whānau and especially her mokopuna. They speak of her in glowing terms. She was beautiful, she was caring, she was loving, and she would help anyone. She was the rock and voice of reason for her whānau. To lose her, especially in the way she died, is extremely painful for you all, and indeed shattering.

[3] Some of you were witness to what happened. You have the added trauma of this. While it will be no solace to you whatsoever, such was her mana, that even though very ill, she tried to protect her whānau, a point powerfully made by her daughters. I wish to acknowledge also the words of forgiveness expressed in the victim impact statements. This too is a testament to the mana of your mother and of your whānau.

[4] Nothing I say in this sentence will remedy your loss. But I hope you know that I have listened carefully to what you have had to say and that I have done the best I can to understand your loss.

[5] Koia ka tino nui te aroha ki a koutou te whānau o te whaea Linda. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

Facts of offending

[6] Mr Kiro, I turn now to the facts of your offending. You may be seated if you wish. I will ask you to stand at the end.

[7] Linda Woods lived in Kaikohe with her daughter Ana, two of her granddaughters, Aaliyah and Quanesha, and one of her great granddaughters. Mr Kiro, you lived on the same street, but you were not known to them.

[8] On 1 June 2023, you went to Linda’s home at about 11.40 pm. You arrived on foot. You took a white plastic chair from the deck and placed it underneath an insecure window at the rear of the property. You removed your shoes and left them nearby. The window was slightly ajar, you stood on the white chair, opened 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 Kiro

Details

AGLC: R v Kiro [2024] NZHC 853
Case: [2024] NZHC 853
Decision Date: 23 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Whata J delivered a judgment on April 23, 2024, in the case of the King v Terrance Lowe Kiro. Terrance Lowe Kiro pleaded guilty to one charge of manslaughter, one charge of burglary, and two charges of aggravated assault. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant's criminal activities. The legal issues involved assessing the gravity of the crimes, the defendant's culpability, and the principles of sentencing. The court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing, including denunciation, accountability, deterrence, public protection, and rehabilitation. The starting point for the sentence was determined to be six years and six months, with an uplift for the burglary and assaults, leading to a total of seven years and six months. However, various mitigating factors, such as the defendant's remorse, his background, and his potential for rehabilitation, resulted in a cumulative discount of 20%. Additionally, a 25% discount for the defendant's guilty plea was applied, leading to a final sentence of three years and seven months for manslaughter, with concurrent sentences of two years for burglary and six months for each count of aggravated assault. The court emphasised the importance of the sentence in helping the defendant restore his and his family's mana.

Orders