IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-090-630

[2020] NZHC 1160

THE QUEEN

v

MARTIN MARINOVICH

Hearing: 29 May 2020

Appearances:

RMA McCoubrey and EAM Mok for Crown S Tait and MW Ryan for Defendant

Sentence:

29 May 2020

SENTENCING NOTES OF WALKER J

R v MARINOVICH [2020] NZHC 1160 [29 May 2020]

Introduction

[1] Martin Marinovich, you were found guilty of murder after a trial before a jury between 17 and 25 February 2020. The victim was your mother, Noeleen Marinovich.

[2] Before I begin my sentencing remarks, I wish to acknowledge again the presence today of Mr Mate Marinovich and Ms Janet Daniel. We have heard their moving statements. It is clear that family and friends are grieving and they will continue to suffer deep grief. I extend to them the heartfelt sympathy of this Court.

[3] As Mr Tait has properly acknowledged on your behalf, the only sentence I can impose on you is one of life imprisonment.1 Such a sentence is the default sentence for murder unless manifestly unjust. It is impossible to displace that presumption in your case.2

[4] The issue I must decide today is the number of years you must serve before you may receive parole. This is the minimum term of imprisonment. The Crown says that yours is a case which requires a minimum term of at least 17 years. Mr Tait on your behalf submits that I should consider significant aspects of your recent diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) which mean that the facts and circumstances fall short of requiring a minimum term of 17 years.

[5] Your defence at trial was lack of murderous intent. You asserted that you did not intend to kill your mother when you put her hands around her neck, and that you believed she was dead when you struck her with a hammer. Your counsel argued that this was properly a case of manslaughter. That was rejected by the jury, who determined that all the ingredients of murder were proven beyond reasonable doubt. In particular, it can reasonably be concluded that the jury accepted that the operating cause of your mother’s death was the blows to her head because of the evidence of defensive wounds to your mother’s arms.

1 Sentencing Act 2002, s 102.
2 It is only in exceptional and rare cases that a sentence of life imprisonment for murder would be found to be unjust. R v Rapira [2003] 3 NZLR 794 (CA).

Your Offending

[6] First, I must turn to the facts of your offending. I appreciate that these are well known to you. I also recognise that it will be painful for everyone to be reminded yet again of these events. However, sentencing is a public function – carried out for and on behalf of the public. Therefore, it is necessary to set these matters out.

[7] You and your mother lived together in a small unit on…

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 Marinovich

Details

AGLC: R v Marinovich [2020] NZHC 1160
Case: [2020] NZHC 1160
Decision Date: 29 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Martin Marinovich was convicted of murdering his mother, Noeleen Marinovich. The court was tasked with determining the minimum term of imprisonment Marinovich would serve before becoming eligible for parole. The Crown argued for a minimum term of 17 years, citing the brutality and callousness of the crime, as well as the vulnerability of the victim. Marinovich's defense, however, argued that a lower minimum term of 14 years was appropriate, considering his Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and lack of prior criminal history.

The court acknowledged that while the murder was indeed brutal and the victim particularly vulnerable, several mitigating factors warranted consideration. Marinovich's ASD, lack of prior criminal history, impulsive nature of the crime, and expressions of remorse were significant mitigating factors. The court found that these factors, combined with Marinovich's young age and limited life experience, made a 17-year minimum term manifestly unjust. The court concluded that a minimum term of 14 years would adequately balance the principles of accountability, denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Martin Marinovich was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years. The effective sentence remains life, with the possibility of parole consideration only after 14 years have been served. The court directed that Dr Duff's assessment be provided to Corrections to assist in Marinovich's custodial care.

Orders