R v Mareikura - [2014] NZHC 3244

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI-2013-043-1754 [2014] NZHC 3244

THE QUEEN

v

SHILOH MAREIKURA

Hearing: 16 December 2014

Appearances:

J Marinovich for the Crown
P Mooney for the Defendant

Judgment:

16 December 2014

SENTENCING REMARKS OF THOMAS J

Solicitors:

C&M Legal, Auckland.
Mooney & Webb, New Plymouth.

R v MAREIKURA [2014] NZHC 3244 [16 December 2014]

[1] Shiloh Mareikura, you appear today for sentencing having pleaded guilty to one charge of murder.

[2] The sentence for murder is life imprisonment, unless it would be manifestly unjust.1 In your case there is no suggestion that a sentence of life imprisonment would be unjust so that is the sentence that I will impose on you. The question I must decide is what minimum period of imprisonment should be imposed. That is the term that you must serve before you can be eligible for parole.

Facts of the offending

[3] On 21 November 2012, you were convicted in the Hawera District Court for contravening a protection order, threatening to kill and breaching court release conditions. You were sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment on the charge of threatening to kill and eight months concurrently on each of the other two charges.

[4] On 10 April 2013 you were released from prison on conditions. Those were:

(a) not to enter the township of Opunake without the express consent of a probation officer;

(b)

to attend an assessment for substance abuse, alcohol and drugs as recommended; and

(c)

to attend an assessment for domestic violence counselling and to attend and complete any treatment programme.

[5]

You

were given written approval on 4 September 2013 to return to Opunake

and attend the tangi of Ms Lellmann, a friend of your mother’s. You were to stay with your mother in Opunake for one night only, being 4 September, and to leave
Opunake by 5 pm on 5 September 2013.

1 Sentencing Act 2002, s 102(1).

[6] You did not, in fact, attend the tangi at the marae. You arrived at your mother’s address at around 6 pm on Wednesday 4 September. You showered, then went to the Surf Inn to socialise. When the Inn closed at around 11 pm, you continued socialising at an address on Domett Street. At around 3 am you returned to your mother’s address.

[7] When you got to your mother’s house, you woke family members and your mother twice told you to quieten down. She describes you as being under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. You told your younger brother and nephew, who were woken up, that you were looking for a screwdriver and/or a knife. A short time later you left your mother’s address.

[8] At around 5 am you knocked on the door of the victim, Mr Desroe Bishop. Mr Bishop answered the door. Hone, Mr Bishop’s son, heard a male voice say “Where are the drugs?”. There was a brief argument between you and Mr Bishop. He told you to leave. There was a…

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 Mareikura

Details

AGLC: R v Mareikura [2014] NZHC 3244
Case: [2014] NZHC 3244
Decision Date: 16 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Mareikura involves the sentencing of Shiloh Mareikura, who pleaded guilty to one charge of murder. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment, with the court required to determine the appropriate minimum term of imprisonment. The defendant's personal history includes a troubled childhood, leaving school without qualifications, and a criminal record consisting mainly of theft, burglary, drug charges, and breaches of court orders and conditions. The court considered several factors in determining the minimum term, including the defendant's guilty plea, mental health issues, and the level of brutality, cruelty, depravity, or callousness involved in the offence. The court found that the murder involved a high level of brutality and callousness, warranting a minimum term of 17 years. However, taking into account the defendant's guilty plea, mental health issues, and the purposes of sentencing, the court determined that a minimum term of 15 years would be appropriate.

In summary, the court sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment for the charge of murder, with a minimum term of 15 years. The decision took into account the defendant's personal circumstances, the level of brutality involved in the offence, and the purposes of sentencing, including accountability, denunciation, deterrence, and community protection.

Orders