R v Lambert - [2020] NZHC 2475

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TŪRANGANUI-A-KIWA ROHE

CRI-2019-020-1924

[2020] NZHC 2475

THE QUEEN

v

BEN WAIRAMA ARUNDEL LAMBERT

Hearing: 27 November 2020

Counsel:

S J Manning for Crown

S W Hughes QC and A W Clarke for defendant

Sentence:

27 November 2020

SENTENCING NOTES OF DOBSON J

[1] Mr Lambert, I have to sentence you this morning on your conviction for the murder of Michael Huata. You are also to be sentenced on charges of common assault and intentional damage, but the main focus is on the murder conviction, which is obviously the most serious of these and the most serious of virtually all charges in the criminal law.

[2] I first need to briefly review the factual circumstances in which the offending occurred. I will then describe the considerations that the law requires me to take into account in deciding on the sentence and explain to you what the components of the sentence mean. I will then take into account personal circumstances about you to the extent that they can affect the ultimate sentence.

R v LAMBERT [2020] NZHC 2475 [27 November 2020]

[3] On 16 June last year, you were at a residential address in the township of Mohaka. You saw Mr Hirini Taurima in the next door property and climbed over the fence to engage with him. That discussion led you to believe that Mr Taurima had been responsible for stealing the wheel of a car owned by one of your aunties. You punched him in the head, leading to a fight between the two of you. You armed yourself with an axe in response to which Mr Taurima armed himself with a boning knife, apparently to dissuade you from further fighting. You used the axe to smash the windows and lights of Mr Taurima’s car, you climbed on top of it, jumping on the vehicle to cause substantial panel damage. You were then chased from the property by Mr Taurima, who was still wielding the boning knife Your initial hit to Mr Taurima’s head on that occasion is the subject of the charge of common assault and your damage to his car is the subject of the charge of intentional damage.

[4] Two afternoons later, on 18 June 2019, there was another confrontation, this time at an address in Raupunga. Mr Taurima, with his brother and a nephew, arrived at that property looking for you. Initially they were told you were not there but you then came out of the house and told Mr Taurima that he should take your van as compensation for the damage you had caused to his car. A scuffle ensued between you and Mr Taurima’s nephew. Mr Taurima, who had been armed with a shotgun throughout, approached the two of you and fired a single shot from his shotgun into the ground. The shot was close enough to cause some minor injury to one of your feet. While you were on…

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 Lambert

Details

AGLC: R v Lambert [2020] NZHC 2475
Case: [2020] NZHC 2475
Decision Date: 27 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Lambert, the defendant, Ben Wairama Arundel Lambert, was convicted of the murder of Michael Huata, as well as common assault and intentional damage. The court had to decide on an appropriate sentence for these convictions, with the primary focus being on the murder charge. The court considered various factors, including the circumstances of the murder, the defendant's personal circumstances, and the relevant legal principles governing sentencing for murder. The court concluded that a life sentence was appropriate for the murder conviction, with a minimum non-parole period (MPI) of 10 years, reflecting the seriousness of the crime and the defendant's guilty plea and rehabilitative prospects.

The court examined the facts of the case, which involved a series of confrontations between the defendant and the victim, Michael Huata, culminating in the fatal shooting. The defendant had armed himself with a sawn-off shotgun and shot Mr Huata at close range, causing fatal injuries. The court also considered the impact of the murder on Mr Huata's whānau and the community. In determining the sentence, the court applied the legal principles governing murder sentencing, including the requirement for a life sentence unless it would be manifestly unjust, and the need to set a minimum non-parole period that reflects the seriousness of the offence.

The court assessed various factors in deciding the appropriate minimum non-parole period, including the premeditation of the crime, the use of a dangerous weapon, the close range of the shooting, and the defendant's failure to seek assistance for the victim. The court also considered mitigating factors such as the defendant's guilty plea, lack of previous convictions, and his attitude towards rehabilitation. After weighing these factors, the court determined that a starting point of 11 years and 9 months for the minimum non-parole period was appropriate, and applied discounts for the defendant's guilty plea and other mitigating factors, resulting in a final minimum non-parole period of 10 years. The court also imposed concurrent sentences for the common assault and intentional damage charges.

Orders