R v Leota-Lu - [2023] NZHC 413

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-092-007005

[2023] NZHC 413

THE KING

v

SUSANA MAKERITA LEOTA-LU

Hearing: 15 December 2023

Counsel:

A F Devathasan and J Bragg for Crown K S Holden and S Cassidy for Defendant

Sentence:

15 December 2023

SENTENCE OF ANDERSON J

Solicitors:Kayes Fletcher Walker Ltd, Manukau K S Holden, Auckland

R v LEOTA-LU [2023] NZHC 413 [15 December 2023]

[1] Susana Leota-Lu, in the early hours of 3 September last year you murdered Samantha Whitehouse.

[2] It is common ground you must be sentenced to life imprisonment for your offending.1 The issue is the number of years you must serve before you become eligible for parole. This is called a minimum period of imprisonment. It will be the focus of your sentencing today.

[3] Before I go any further, I would like to acknowledge the family of Ms Whitehouse and their supporters who are here or watching today. Any sentence I impose cannot in any way compensate you for the loss of Ms Whitehouse in such terrible circumstances. I extend the Court’s deepest sympathy to you.

Facts

[4] Ms Leota-Lu, I first outline the facts of your offending as I have found them. You and Ms Whitehouse both lived in the Lakewood Plaza apartment complex: you on level 7 and Ms Whitehouse on level 1.

[5] You met each other around June 2022 when Ms Whitehouse went out of her way to try to help you when she saw you were walking past the apartment block looking upset and needing assistance.

[6] You and Ms Whitehouse started spending the evening of 2 September 2022 together, after a chance encounter at the lifts in the foyer of the apartment complex at about 7 pm. At about 8 pm the two of you met an acquaintance of yours at his car and went out to purchase and smoke some methamphetamine. While you were out, you had an argument with Ms Whitehouse over your insistence that she had stolen your phone on the first occasion you had met.

[7] The three of you arrived back at Lakewood Plaza at around 11 pm and went to your apartment. The acquaintance went home at around 11.45 pm. While he was still

1 Sentencing Act 2002, s 102.

there, you and Ms Whitehouse had a further argument. The two of you smoked some more methamphetamine.

[8] At some point in the evening, you started accusing Ms Whitehouse of things you had imagined. You became angry with Ms Whitehouse, believing that she had wronged you in a number of ways, including having stolen your phone and been involved with your ex-husband. She seemed to you to be finishing stories you were telling about your family and then denying that she knew. You became increasingly frustrated and riled up. Ms Whitehouse tried to leave. You grabbed a knife.

[9] At around 3 am your neighbours in the opposite apartment heard you shouting.…

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 Leota-Lu

Details

AGLC: R v Leota-Lu [2023] NZHC 413
Case: [2023] NZHC 413
Decision Date: 15 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Susana Makerita Leota-Lu was convicted of the murder of Samantha Whitehouse, which occurred in the early hours of 3 September 2022. The High Court of New Zealand was required to determine the minimum period of imprisonment Leota-Lu must serve before becoming eligible for parole. The Crown argued for a minimum period of 18 years, while Leota-Lu's defence sought a minimum of 10 years. The court considered the brutality and callousness of the murder, as well as Leota-Lu's significant criminal history, which included previous violent offences. The court found the murder to be especially bad due to the level of brutality and callousness exhibited by Leota-Lu, who attacked Whitehouse with multiple weapons and showed no remorse. Despite the mitigating factors presented by Leota-Lu's counsel, including her criminal history and personal circumstances, the court determined a minimum period of 17 years to be appropriate. This decision was made to hold Leota-Lu accountable for her actions, denounce the offending, deter others from similar crimes, and protect the community. The court sentenced Leota-Lu to life imprisonment with a minimum period of 17 years before eligibility for parole.

Leota-Lu murdered Samantha Whitehouse in a brutal and callous manner, leading the court to impose a minimum period of 17 years before eligibility for parole. The court found the murder to be especially bad due to the high level of brutality and callousness exhibited by Leota-Lu, who used multiple weapons and showed no remorse. While the court acknowledged Leota-Lu's significant criminal history and personal circumstances, it determined that a minimum period of 17 years was appropriate to hold her accountable, denounce the offending, deter others, and protect the community.

Orders