ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE VICTIM’S SISTER.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CRI-2020-004-3127
[2021] NZHC 3367
THE QUEEN
v
JIANN-HWA MAA
Hearing:
10 December 2021
Appearances:
R McCoubrey for the Crown
K-A Stoikoff for the Defendant
Sentencing:
10 December 2021
SENTENCE OF GAULT J
Solicitors:
Mr R McCoubrey and Ms S Murphy, Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland Ms K-A Stoikoff, Public Defence Service, Auckland
R v MAA [2021] NZHC 3367 [10 December 2021]
[1] Mr Maa, you appear for sentence after pleading guilty to the murder of Mr Zion Gutnik.1 I have to explain the sentence in some detail, so I will pause as I go for the interpreter.
[2] I will first set out the facts of your offending, which it is necessary to do in open Court, and refer to the victim impact statements. Then I will explain the approach I am required to take in sentencing you for the offence of murder, which requires me to impose a minimum period of imprisonment, before determining the appropriate sentence having regard to the circumstances of your offending and your personal circumstances, including your guilty plea.
Facts
[3]I turn to the facts of your offending.
[4] 574 Manukau Road, Epsom is well-established as a club used by sex workers to meet and entertain their clients. Several managers organise the daily business on behalf of the proprietor, Ms Li. Those managers work a daytime shift from 10:00 am to 7:00 pm or an evening shift from 7:00 pm, typically ending around 3:00 am the following morning. You and Mr Gutnik were two of the managers. You resided onsite in a sleep-out adjacent to the main building one or two nights a week, while Mr Gutnik travelled to work his shifts from his apartment in central Auckland. You typically worked during the daytime while Mr Gutnik worked during the evenings. The relationship between you and Mr Gutnik was a strained one and on at least one occasion, in December 2019, deteriorated to a physical altercation between you.
[5] At 12:30 am on 10 March 2020, Police were called to 574 Manukau Road. A quantity of blood had been located on a wall in the lounge area and you and Mr Gutnik, who were rostered to work the shifts that day, were both missing. You were working the day shift and Mr Gutnik was working the night shift.
1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 167(b) and 172. Maximum penalty: life imprisonment.
[6] During a subsequent Police search looking for the missing managers, entry was forced to the sleep-out. The door was jammed, but not locked. Upon entering the sleep-out, Mr Gutnik’s body was discovered. His head and upper torso had been concealed inside a black plastic rubbish bag. When Police opened the plastic bag, they discovered he had sustained significant head and facial injuries which made a visual identification impossible.
[7] During the…
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 Maa
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Maa [2021] NZHC 3367
Case
[2021] NZHC 3367
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case before the High Court of New Zealand involved the sentencing of Jiann-Hwa Maa for the murder of Zion Gutnik. The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge, and the court had to determine the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) before considering parole eligibility. The key legal issue was whether the murder involved a high level of brutality, cruelty, or callousness, which would warrant a minimum term of 17 years under s 104 of the Sentencing Act. The Crown argued for a 17-year term, citing the brutality of the attack and the defendant's callous actions post-offence. The defence countered that the murder did not meet the statutory threshold and submitted for a lower MPI. After examining the evidence, the court found that while the murder was brutal and callous, it did not reach the statutory threshold for a 17-year MPI. Instead, the court determined a 16-year starting point for the MPI, reduced to 14 and a half years after considering mitigating factors such as the defendant's guilty plea and personal circumstances. The court ultimately sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 14 and a half years before parole eligibility.