R v Marong - [2018] NZHC 748

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2016-009-5233

[2018] NZHC 748

THE QUEEN

v

SAINEY MARONG

Hearing: 20 April 2018

Appearances:

P Currie and S Mallett for the Crown

J Krebs and N Hansen for the Defendant

Judgment:

20 April 2018

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MANDER J

[1] Mr Marong, you are for sentence this morning, having been found guilty by a jury of murdering Renee Duckmanton. The sentence for murder is life imprisonment. There can be no suggestion that a sentence of life imprisonment would be manifestly unjust, so that is the sentence that I will be imposing on you.

[2] The only question that arises is the minimum period of imprisonment that should be imposed as a condition of that sentence. The minimum period of imprisonment is the term you must serve before you can be eligible for consideration for parole. It does not fix the term of your sentence which, as I have said, will be one of life imprisonment. Before addressing that issue, it is necessary I set out the factual basis upon which I proceed to sentence you.

R v MARONG [2018] NZHC 748 [20 April 2018]

The facts

[3] Shortly after 9.00 pm on 14 May 2016, you picked Ms Duckmanton up from a central Christchurch street where she was working that evening as a sex worker.

[4] The last communication received from Ms Duckmanton was that her client wanted to take her back to his house and that she was going to be gone for an hour. CCTV footage and cell phone tower tracking records showed you travelled with Ms Duckmanton to the outskirts of Christchurch. The last message received from Ms Duckmanton’s cell phone was at 10.23 pm. A few minutes later her phone disconnected from the telecommunications network. It is believed it was approximately around that time that you strangled Ms Duckmanton.

[5] The following day you disposed of Ms Duckmanton’s half-naked body on the side of a rural Canterbury road. You doused the body with petrol and set her on fire. Your semen was found in Ms Duckmanton’s vagina, indicating that sexual intercourse had taken place. There is a lingering question as to whether sexual intercourse took place before or after Ms Duckmanton’s murder. The Crown has acknowledged that because it cannot prove that potential aggravating feature, that possible aspect must be put to one side.

[6] At trial, you claimed that en route to a friend’s house, Ms Duckmanton requested you stop and have sex in the car. You maintain that occurred and that an argument then developed because Ms Duckmanton insisted she be taken back to Christchurch, whereas you were intent on going to your friend’s house. You claim this, to use your word, “agitated” you and you impulsively responded by compressing her neck to shut her up. You also claim you did not know what you were doing, nor that you understood it was wrong. I reject that…

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 Marong

Details

AGLC: R v Marong [2018] NZHC 748
Case: [2018] NZHC 748
Decision Date: 20 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Marong involved the sentencing of the defendant, Sainey Marong, who was found guilty of the murder of Renee Duckmanton. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand at Christchurch. The primary legal issue was the determination of the minimum period of imprisonment Marong should serve before becoming eligible for parole, as the mandatory sentence for murder is life imprisonment.

The court considered several factors in its reasoning, including the premeditated nature of the crime, the callousness and brutality exhibited during the murder, and the vulnerability of the victim. Marong had conducted extensive internet searches about kidnapping, killing methods, and necrophilia, indicating a prolonged preoccupation with the idea of murdering a sex worker. The court found that the murder was exceptionally cruel and callous, with Marong showing a complete disregard for his victim. The court also highlighted Marong's lack of remorse and insight into his actions, as well as his evident lack of empathy, which further supported the imposition of a lengthy minimum term.

After evaluating these factors, the court concluded that the exceptional circumstances of the murder warranted a minimum period of imprisonment of at least 17 years, as per the legislative policy outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002. The court ultimately sentenced Marong to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 18 years. Additionally, the court issued a strike warning under the three strikes legislation, informing Marong that any future serious violent offences would result in a sentence without parole.

The final orders of the court were that Marong was to be sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 18 years, and that he receive a formal strike warning regarding the three strikes legislation.

Orders