R v Korewha - [2015] NZHC 308

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI 2013-027-1137 [2015] NZHC 308

THE QUEEN

v

MATHEW WILSON KOREWHA

Hearing: 27 February 2015

Counsel:

M B Smith for Crown
C S Cull and A M Dooney for Defendant

Sentence:

27 February 2015

SENTENCE OF BROWN J

[1] Mr Korewha you are for sentence today having been found guilty on

2 December 2014 by a jury of murdering Barbara Moka. In addition you have pleaded guilty to a charge of injuring with intent to injure.

[2] The sentence for murder, unless it would be manifestly unjust, is life imprisonment. In your case there is no suggestion that a sentence of life imprisonment would be unjust so that is the sentence that I will be imposing on you.

[3] But the question I must decide, and to which counsel’s submissions have been directed, is what minimum period of imprisonment should be imposed as a condition of that sentence. The minimum term of imprisonment is the term that you must serve before you can be eligible for consideration for parole. It does not fix the
term of your sentence which, as I have said, will be one of life imprisonment.

R v KOREWHA [2015] NZHC 308 [27 February 2015]

[4] Before turning to address counsels’ submissions I first want to acknowledge today the victims who are present here, the family and friends of Barbara. I want to acknowledge the courage and the dignity of the victim impact reports which I have received from Isobel Moka, Moengaroa Moka, Lady Jane Moka, Iris Fahy and the statement that I have read of Heremaia Moka. They paint the picture of Barbara as a vibrant personality who was full of life. She was described as an awesome mother and sister. Four children have lost a mother.

[5] Parliament has provided that for some killings, the minimum period must be at least 17 years unless the Court is satisfied it would be manifestly unjust to do so. Section 104(1) of the Sentencing Act 2002 sets out 10 circumstances in which the Court must impose such a minimum period. One of these situations is when the murder was committed with a high level of brutality, cruelty, depravity or callousness. Another is where the deceased was particularly vulnerable because of her age, health or because of any other factor. The Crown contends that the circumstances of this case meet both those criteria. Your counsel argues to the contrary. It is necessary for me to review those circumstances.

The facts

[6] You and Barbara were in a relationship which you told the probation officer had deteriorated in the six months prior to Barbara’s death. You say that this was due to financial stress and the stress which Barbara was under dealing with counselling requirements requested by Child Youth and Family regarding her four children.

[7] In the January 2013 incident the two of you argued in your car while returning from work in Omapere to Rawene and you both became…

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 Korewha

Details

AGLC: R v Korewha [2015] NZHC 308
Case: [2015] NZHC 308
Decision Date: 27 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mathew Wilson Korewha was convicted of the murder of Barbara Moka and also pleaded guilty to a charge of injuring with intent to injure. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand at Whangarei Registry. The primary legal issue the court needed to address was determining the minimum term of imprisonment Korewha must serve before becoming eligible for parole, as the standard sentence for murder is life imprisonment. The court had to assess whether the murder involved a "high level of brutality, cruelty, depravity, or callousness" or if the victim was "particularly vulnerable," which would mandate a minimum term of 17 years under the Sentencing Act 2002.

The court found that the murder was committed with a high level of brutality and callousness, considering the severe and violent nature of the attack and the failure to seek help for the victim despite the proximity of assistance. The court also found that Korewha's subsequent conduct, such as hiding the body and misleading authorities about the victim's whereabouts, further exemplified callousness. Although Korewha had no prior convictions and expressed regret, these factors did not sufficiently mitigate the severity of the crime to warrant a departure from the mandatory minimum term. The court held that a minimum term of 17 years was appropriate to reflect the gravity of the offence and to serve the purposes of sentencing.

The court sentenced Korewha to life imprisonment for the murder charge, with a mandatory minimum of 17 years before parole eligibility. For the charge of injuring with intent to injure, Korewha was sentenced to two years and two months, to be served concurrently with the murder sentence.

Orders