R v Marteley HC Hamilton CRI 2009-019-9786

[2010] NZHC 2006

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF AJN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI 2009-019-9786

THE QUEEN

v

TODD AARON MARTELEY

Hearing:         5 November 2010

Counsel:         R G Douch for Crown

P J Morgan QC for Mr Marteley

Sentence imposed:     Murder (x1)

Life imprisonment, with minimum non-parole period of
14 years

Judgment:      5 November 2010

SENTENCING NOTES OF HEATH J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, PO Box 19173, Hamilton
Counsel:

P J Morgan QC, PO Box 19021, Hamilton

R V MARTELEY HC HAM CRI 2009-019-9786  5 November 2010

Introduction

[1]      Todd Aaron Marteley, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to a single charge of murder, arising out of the death of Mr Kingi on 10 June 2009.

[2]      The plea of guilty was entered on 3 September 2010.  On the same day, two co offenders, Mr Manukau and Ms Heremaia also entered pleas of guilty to charges of murder and manslaughter respectively.   They were sentenced on 30 September

2010 along with a fourth person, AJN, who had pleaded guilty earlier to a charge of murder.

[3]      Your  three  co-offenders  were  sentenced  together.     Both  AJN  and  Mr Manukau received life sentences, with minimum terms of imprisonment of 10 and 12 years respectively.  I need to have regard to those sentences to ensure that all three of you, who accept that you killed Mr King with what the law regards as murderous intent, are treated in a consistent manner.

[4]      There is no reason in this case for the Court to impose anything other than a sentence of life imprisonment.   The only issue for me today is to determine the minimum term you must serve before you become eligible to apply for parole.

[5]      As Mr Morgan QC, on your behalf, stated earlier today, it is very important that the public realise that the sentence you serve is life imprisonment.  Whether you receive  parole  on  the  first  time  you  make  that  application  or  at  any  time subsequently, is for the future to determine.

The facts

[6]      Mr Kingi’s body was found in a motor vehicle parked on Mansel Avenue in

Hillcrest on 14 June 2009.

[7]      Mr Kingi was believed to be involved with the Class A controlled drug, methamphetamine.  Police intelligence indicated that he was often in possession of

large quantities of that drug and cash.   The intelligence also suggested that some items would be stored within the engine bay of motor vehicles he was driving at a particular time.

[8]      Shortly before the events that led to Mr Kingi being killed, you and others hatched a plan to steal a checmical from a local agricultural industry supplier.  That chemical is commonly used in the manufacture of methamphetamine.  Subsequently, you  considered  that  Mr  Kingi  had  double  crossed  you  in  this  transaction  and deprived you of your share of the proceeds of that venture.

[9]      At   about   the   same   time,   Mr   Manukau   was   being   supplied   with methamphetamine by Mr Kingi.  He was dissatisfied with the quality of the product he was receiving.  Your respective grievances were aired when you were present at Mr Manukau’s home and a decision was made to seek retribution against Mr Kingi.

[10]     Your counsel has submitted that Mr Manukau, rather than you, was the ring- leader in this venture.  The view I take from the summary of facts to which you have pleaded guilty is that you and Mr Manukau should be regarded as equally culpable for what occurred.  I propose to sentence you on that basis.

[11]     The plan was for you to lure Mr Kingi to an address in Cobham Drive, where you and Ms Heremaia lived.  At that stage it was intended to attack him and take money and drugs.  In short, to commit an aggravated robbery.  The intention was for you and AJN to be inside the house and to carry out the physical assault, with Mr Manukau and Ms Heremaia acting as look-outs.

[12]     Between 7 June 2009 and 10 June 2009, a series of text communications were exchanged among you, Mr Manukau and Mr Kingi.   In short, you advised Mr Kingi that you were in possession of a large sum of money following the sale of a power boat.  You indicated that you wanted to buy methamphetamine from him and expected to complete the transaction on 10 June 2009, at your home.

[13]     Having been tricked on that basis, Mr Kingi came to your house on 10 June

2009.  He was struck in the head with a cricket bat and with a tomahawk.  The post

mortem report indicates that Mr Kingi died as a result of head injuries consistent with blunt force trauma.  Death occurred quickly, with Mr Kingi dying in one of the bedrooms.

[14]     The  sustained  nature  of  the  attack  is  evidenced  by  the  findings  of  the pathologist.   There were cuts and stab wounds consistent with injuries that would have been inflicted by a tomahawk.  There were wounds to the head, neck, back and limbs.  Mr Kingi’s skull was fractured, with the fracture extending from the left side of the skull around to the right side.  Some defence wounds were identified, but it is unlikely that he had any real opportunity to defend himself.

[15]     After his death, Mr Kingi was bundled up in bedclothes and put into the rear of his motor vehicle.   The vehicle was driven to Mansel Avenue, where it was abandoned.  It was some time later that the Police discovered the body in the car.

Purposes of sentencing

[16]    In a case like this, the primary sentencing goals must be denunciation, accountability, deterrence and the protection of the public from those who are prepared to engage in conduct of this type.   Those purposes are relevant, in this particular case, to the minimum period of imprisonment I am required to impose on the murder charge.[1]

[1] Sentencing Act 2002, ss 8, 86 and 106(2).

[17]     Victim impact statements have been provided.  Those statements reveal the depth of despair that had been reached by those who were associated with Mr Kingi. As you would expect, the death of a person affects their loved ones deeply.  You are one of the people that brought about those feelings.  You have caused the loss of a life and the penalty I impose today must reflect that.

Analysis

[18]     In submissions today, Mr Morgan has urged me not to effectively treat the aggravated robbery that was planned in a manner that would add to the nature of the crime you actually committed.  He has also urged me to give you some credit for the guilty plea, even though you were not sentenced on 30 September because you had indicated an intention to vacate that plea.

[19]     Mr  Morgan  also  submits  that,  on  the  facts,  I  cannot  regard  you  as  the perpetrator of all things that happened to Mr Kingi that day.  As he rightly observes, I think if all of you gave evidence, it would still be difficult to establish exactly who did what to whom and when.

[20]     The aggravating features of this offending mean that a starting point for considering a minimum term of imprisonment is one of 17 years.[2]   In that sense I use the word starting point, solely as the period that the law requires me to use for the purpose of determining whether it is manifestly unjust for you to receive any lesser

[2] Ibid, ss 103(2) and 104(1).

period.[3]

[3] Ibid, s 103(2).

[21] impris	The onme a)	factors   that   are   instrumental   in   fixing   the  minimum   period   of nt at 17 years are these:[4] The killing resulted from a calculated plan in which you and AJN
were both involved.  It was premeditated, in the sense that you agreed
to a plan that involved a vicious attack on Mr Kingi with AJN.
b)	The murder was committed with a high level of brutality, cruelty and
callousness as is evidenced by the pathologist’s report.
c)	Attempts  were  made  to  subvert  the  course  of  justice,  by  hiding
Mr Kingi’s body in the vehicle and abandoning it at a location some distance from where the crime occurred.  In doing that, you gave no

[4] Ibid, s 104(1)(a), (b) and (e).

dignity to Mr Kingi in death.  Not only did you attack him and take his life, but you also disposed of it in the manner that was designed to cover up what had happened.

[22]     In  determining  whether  it  is  “manifestly  unjust”  to  impose  a  minimum sentence of imprisonment of less than 17 years,[5] I am required to have regard to your specific personal circumstances.

[5] Ibid, s 104.

[23]     In comparison with the sentence imposed on Mr Manukau, you have no health problems of the type from which he suffered.  Your guilty pleas were entered at the same time although there has been a delay in sentencing you because of the now abandoned intention to apply to vacate the guilty plea.  The effect of that has been to deny the victim’s family closure in relation to this tragic event at an earlier time.

[24]     When they left sentencing on 30 September, they did not know if this was going to trial or not.  While they have not been present today in Court in the numbers they were on the previous occasion, I take account fully of the moving statements that were made to the Court on that occasion, indicating the tragic loss they have suffered.

[25]     Your decision not to proceed with the application to vacate the guilty plea has clearly saved the State and the family both economically and in emotional terms respectively but the level of credit to be given to you must diminish as a result of the time that has passed before true closure could be achieved.

[26]     Having said all of that, there is information before me to suggest that there are some compelling personal circumstances that make it appropriate to allow some credit from the 17 year minimum period that would otherwise be appropriate.  They are matters into which it is not appropriate to go publicly and I do not intend to do so.   However, I am satisfied on the basis of what I have read that a minimum sentence should have deducted from it a period of three years so that the minimum period of imprisonment you will serve is one of 14 years.

[27]     To put that in simple terms, I am satisfied that no more than 14 years is appropriate to mark your conduct as a minimum term but I am not satisfied that it would be manifestly unjust to go below that.

Result

[28]   Mr Marteley, you are sentenced on the charge of murder to a term of imprisonment for life, with a minimum non-parole period of 14 years.

[29]     Stand down.

P R Heath J