Legal Research
Cases
R v Lisiate

R v Lisiate

Case [2021] NZHC 3387 9 December 2021

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Minimum Period of Imprisonment

Guilty Plea

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

Recidivism

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-044-000915

[2021] NZHC 3387

THE QUEEN

v

SIUAKI LISIATE

Hearing: 9 December 2021

Appearances:

David Johnstone and David Wiseman for the Crown

Ron Mansfield QC and Jack Oliver-Hood for the Defendant

Sentencing Notes:

9 December 2021

SENTENCING NOTES OF MOORE J

R v LISIATE [2021] NZHC 3387 [9 December 2021]

Introduction

[1] Siuaki Lisiate, at the age of 41, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to the murder of Blake Lee.

[2] It is my task to pass sentence on you. That process requires me not only to cover the facts and the circumstances of Blake Lee’s killing, but also to make some determinations which are relevant in coming to my decision on what the final sentence should be.

[3] For reasons which your counsel, Mr Mansfield QC, may have explained, the law as it applies to the sentencing process in your case is, by no means, straightforward. There will be some technical aspects which I will need to cover and for that reason it is likely I will take longer than would normally be the case.

[4] I shall start with the facts which, of course, will be well known to you. But because the process of sentencing is quintessentially a public function which must be carried out in open Court, I am required to set out the facts which I regard as relevant to my assessment in reaching the appropriate sentence. Before I do, I need to explain how your charge links in with your three other co-defendants.

Procedural background

[5] You, together with Messrs Telefoni, Ngamoki and Tuliloa, were charged with the murder of Blake Lee. Your joint trial was scheduled to start on 24 May 2021. On 19 May 2021, you pleaded guilty to murder. COVID-19 intervened. Since then there have been several false starts which have delayed things.

[6] Due to your plea, the trial of your co-defendants proceeded without you. I was the presiding Judge. At the beginning of the trial the three defendants each pleaded guilty to a charge of injuring Cesar Su’a with intent to injure. On the murder charge, the jury acquitted Messrs Ngamoki and Tuliloa of any form of culpable homicide. They acquitted Mr Telefoni of murder but found him guilty of manslaughter.

[7] I sentenced Messrs Ngamoki and Tuliloa to 23 months’ and 22 months’ imprisonment respectively. I sentenced Mr Telefoni on the charge of manslaughter to four years’ imprisonment which I ordered was to be served concurrently on the sentence he was serving at the time of this offending. That sentence was heavily discounted for totality reasons. I sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment in relation to the assault on Mr Su’a, to be served concurrently.

[8] Now I turn to the facts. When you pleaded guilty, an agreed summary of facts was filed. That document contained a comprehensive account of what happened. However, there are some findings of…

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 Lisiate

Details

AGLC: R v Lisiate [2021] NZHC 3387
Case: [2021] NZHC 3387
Decision Date: 9 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lisiate involves the sentencing of Siuaki Lisiate, who pleaded guilty to the murder of Blake Lee. Lisiate was one of four co-defendants charged with the murder of Lee and the injuring of Cesar Su’a with intent to injure. The other defendants were found guilty of various charges relating to the incident. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the statutory presumption of life imprisonment without parole would be manifestly unjust for Lisiate, and if so, what sentence should be imposed instead. The court had to consider the circumstances of the offending, Lisiate's culpability, his criminal history, and any mitigating factors.

The court found that Lisiate's attack on Lee was brutal and callous, and that Lee was particularly vulnerable during the attack. Lisiate's previous convictions for serious violent offending, including a prior murder conviction, were considered in determining the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment (MPI). The court also took into account Lisiate's guilty plea and his personal circumstances, including his chronic institutionalisation and difficult upbringing. After weighing all these factors, the court determined that an MPI of 20 years was appropriate. The court further found that a sentence of life imprisonment without parole would be manifestly unjust for Lisiate, considering his guilty plea, his already existing sentence of preventive detention, and the disproportionate impact such a sentence would have on him. Therefore, Lisiate was sentenced to life imprisonment with an MPI of 20 years, to run concurrently with his existing MPI.

Orders