IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CRI-2020-092-010824
[2021] NZHC 2117
THE QUEEN
v
PALMER EDWARD MARSTERS
Hearing:
13 August 2021
Appearances:
K Li for the Crown
P Hamlin for the Defendant
Judgment:
13 August 2021
(ORAL) SENTENCING REMARKS OF WALKER J
R v PALMER EDWARD MARSTERS [2021] NZHC 2117 [13 August 2021]
Introduction
[1] Before I begin my remarks, I acknowledge the whānau of Ms Chontel Wiki- O’Brien present in court today. I acknowledge your grief and your pain. Today is yet another difficult day for you all. Nothing I say or do can help to heal that pain but I express to you the Court’s deepest sympathy for your loss.
[2] Palmer Edwards Marsters, you appear today for sentencing having pleaded guilty to charges of murder;1 injuring with intent to injure,2 and male assaults female.3 All of the charges relate to the same victim, Chontel Wiki-O’Brien.
[3] On 28 May 2021, I delivered a sentencing indication which you subsequently accepted.4 In that indication I adopted a starting point of life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (“MPI”) of 14 years for the murder charge. I increased that by six months to reflect the other charges. From the notional MPI of 14 and a half years, a reduction of two years was given to reflect the guilty plea. A further reduction of six months was made in respect of factors set out in a psychiatrist’s report and a s 27 report. The end indication was life imprisonment with an MPI of 12 years’ imprisonment.
[4] As is usual after a sentencing indication, I have now been provided with more reports: an updating report from Dr Duggal, and a pre-sentence report from the Department of Corrections. The core issue today is whether there is anything in those further reports which leads me to conclude that further reductions from your indicated sentence are to be made. However, because sentencing is carried out for and on behalf of the public, I must explain in these remarks how I reached the indicated sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment.
1 Crimes Act 1967, ss 167 and 172. Maximum sentence life imprisonment, which is to presumptively be imposed (Sentencing Act 2002, s 102), together with a minimum period of imprisonment of no less than ten (s 103) or, pursuant to s 104, no less than seventeen, years.
2 Section 189(2). Maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
3 Section 194(b). Maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.
[5] I start with the victim impact statements read today. You have heard powerful statements of impact from Ms Wiki-O’Brien’s whānau. They are raw and emotional but also relatively measured. They have spoken with great courage this morning. They tell of their ongoing pain, their loving memories of their daughter, sister, cousin and niece. The grief and impact of your offending continues to be deeply felt by them. This is…
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 Marsters
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Marsters [2021] NZHC 2117
Case
[2021] NZHC 2117
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Marsters was heard in the High Court of New Zealand. Palmer Edwards Marsters was convicted of murdering Chontel Wiki-O’Brien, as well as injuring with intent to injure and male assaults female. The legal issues the court had to decide included whether the murder was committed with a high level of brutality, cruelty, depravity, or callousness, and if so, what the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) should be. The court also had to consider the mitigating factors, such as Marsters' guilty plea, mental health issues, and cultural background. After examining the victim impact statements, the court found that the murder was not committed with a high level of brutality, cruelty, depravity, or callousness. The court determined an MPI of 12 years for the murder charge, with an additional six months for the other charges. The final orders included life imprisonment for the murder charge, with an MPI of 12 years, and concurrent sentences of 16 months for injuring with intent to injure and four months for male assaults female.