R v Langley - [2014] NZHC 3230

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-019-611 [2014] NZHC 3230

THE QUEEN

v

PAORA CRAIG LANGLEY

Charge:
Plea:

Murder

Not Guilty

Counsel:

RG Douch for Crown
ST Clark for Prisoner

Sentenced:

16 December 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J

Solicitors/Counsel: Almao Douch (Hamilton) for Crown
EP Leary and ST Clark (Auckland) for Defendant

R v LANGLEY [2014] NZHC 3230 [16 December 2014]

Introduction

[1] Mr Langley, you appear for sentence today having been found guilty by a jury of murdering Mr Tiatia. I know from the pre-sentence report that you still say you did not mean it and that it was an accident. But the jury found otherwise.

[2] I acknowledge the presence of everyone here today, particularly the whanau of Mr Tiatia. I have listened to three of the victim impact statements being read and I have read the other statements on the file. They speak powerfully of the loss that the victims have suffered and the ongoing effects on their lives of that loss. But none of them speak of hatred or revenge, and I respect them for that. And I particularly respect Mr Tilley Tiatia for his willingness to take part in the restorative justice meeting.

[3] I want everyone here to understand that I know that nothing I can do today will make up for the loss of Mr Tiatia. And that is not what sentencing is about anyway. My job, Mr Langley, is to sentence you as the law requires. Not to compensate for what you have done, nor to take revenge on you, but to do justice in the way the law requires.

Facts

[4] Mr Langley, it is necessary for me to tell you the facts on which I will base my sentence. The jury just gives its verdict. It does not give reasons. So, as the trial Judge, I have to decide the proper basis for sentencing you in accordance with the verdict.

[5] First, it is obvious that you and Mr Tiatia did not get on well. There was no active hostility or violence between you, but he would belittle you and then there was the theft of the birthday money. On the day of the murder, Mr Tiatia again got at you. He called you a nark and told you that you would never get the money back. You had been talking about adopting the neighbour’s dog and he scoffed at you for that.

[6] Mr Langley, you got angry. You had had enough. You went upstairs and you got the knife. Your partner tried to talk you out of it but you headed downstairs with the knife intending at least to confront Mr Tiatia. You found him in the lounge. He might or might not have had time to pick up the vacuum cleaner pipe but he certainly did not have time to use it. The jury rejected self-defence and on the evidence was right to do so.

[7] You stabbed Mr Tiatia twice. Each was…

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 Langley

Details

AGLC: R v Langley [2014] NZHC 3230
Case: [2014] NZHC 3230
Decision Date: 16 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Hamilton Registry, heard the case of The Queen versus Paora Craig Langley, who was found guilty of murder. The defendant, Langley, had pleaded not guilty to the charge of murdering Mr. Tiatia. The Crown was represented by RG Douch, while ST Clark represented the defendant. The sentencing took place on 16 December 2014. The court acknowledged the victim's family and the profound impact the loss of Mr. Tiatia had on them, as conveyed through victim impact statements. The statements reflected on the loss suffered but did not express hatred or revenge, which the court respected.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate basis for sentencing Langley in accordance with the murder verdict and the appropriate sentence for the offence. The court found that although Langley and Mr. Tiatia had a strained relationship, there was no active hostility or violence between them prior to the murder. On the day of the murder, Langley got angry after Mr. Tiatia taunted and belittled him, leading Langley to retrieve a knife and stab Mr. Tiatia twice, resulting in his death. The court rejected the defence of self-defence, finding that Langley deliberately stabbed Mr. Tiatia intending to cause him serious harm, knowing that it might result in death. The court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum term of 10 years, taking into account Langley's age and lack of previous convictions, while adhering to the mandatory sentencing guidelines for murder.

The court held that life imprisonment was the appropriate sentence for murder, given the nature of the offence and Langley's actions. The court also considered the minimum term of imprisonment, which must be at least 10 years. While the Crown suggested a longer minimum term, the court decided on a 10-year minimum term, balancing the severity of the crime with Langley's age and criminal history. The court emphasised that the sentence aimed to do justice according to the law, not to compensate for the loss or seek revenge. Langley was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 10 years, after which he may apply for parole, subject to the Parole Board's decision.

Orders