Legal Research
Cases
R v McLeod

R v McLeod

Case [2025] NZHC 2290 13 August 2025

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Unlawful Entry

Vulnerability of Victim

Use of Weapon

Aggravating Factors

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2024-054-283

[2025] NZHC 2290

THE KING

v

MANUKURA MALCOLM McLEOD

Hearing: 13 August 2025

Counsel:

G J C Carter and K S Barber for Crown P H Surridge for Defendant

Sentencing:

13 August 2025

SENTENCING NOTES OF RADICH J

[1] Manukura McLeod, you appear for sentencing today after a jury found you guilty of the murder of Dayne Rademakers.1 The jury by its verdict was satisfied that you stabbed Mr Rademakers intentionally and that, when you did so, you were either intending to kill him or you knew that your actions would likely cause his death but you carried on regardless.

Approach to sentencing

[2] The main purpose of sentencing you today, under the Sentencing Act 2002, is to hold you accountable for the harm you have caused by your offending; to promote in you a sense of responsibility for, and acknowledgement of, that harm; to denounce

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 167 and 172; maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

R v McLEOD [2025] NZHC 2290 [13 August 2025]

your conduct and deter others from acting similarly; and to assist in your rehabilitation and reintegration into society.2 I must consider the gravity of your offending and the degree of your culpability. Your sentence must be consistent with the sentences imposed in other reasonably similar cases,3 and I should impose the least restrictive sentence appropriate in the circumstances.4

[3] When a person has committed murder, the person must under the Sentencing Act be sentenced to imprisonment for life unless, given the circumstances of the offence and the person, a sentence of imprisonment for life would be manifestly unjust. The strong presumption in favour of life imprisonment reflects the sanctity of human life.5 It may only be displaced in compelling cases,6 having regard to the principles and purposes of sentencing.7 There is no doubt here that there are no circumstances that would make life imprisonment manifestly unjust. As a result, you will be sentenced to imprisonment for life.

[4] The question for this Court in determining your sentence is what your minimum period of imprisonment, or MPI, should be. The MPI is the time that an offender must serve in prison before they can be considered for parole by the Parole Board. What I want to make clear is that the MPI is not the time at which you will be released. And it is not a sentence. The sentence is life imprisonment and the Parole Board will not release you on parole unless it is satisfied that you do not pose a future risk to the community. And, even if you are eventually released on parole after you have served that MPI that I set today, you will remain under supervision by the Department of Corrections and you can later, if necessary, be recalled to prison to continue to serve your life sentence.

[5] The purpose of an MPI is to hold…

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 McLeod

Details

AGLC: R v McLeod [2025] NZHC 2290
Case: [2025] NZHC 2290
Decision Date: 13 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Manukura McLeod was sentenced for the murder of Dayne Rademakers. The court found McLeod guilty of stabbing Rademakers intentionally, either with the intent to kill or knowing that his actions would likely cause Rademakers' death. The court's primary objective in sentencing McLeod was to hold him accountable for the harm caused, to denounce his conduct, and to deter others from committing similar acts. Given the nature of the offence and McLeod's culpability, the court determined that a sentence of imprisonment for life was appropriate, with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) set at 17 years. The court considered several factors, including the unlawful entry into the dwelling, the vulnerability of the victim while asleep, the level of violence, and the extent of the loss caused. Although McLeod's difficult upbringing and substance abuse issues were noted, they were not deemed to be mitigating factors for the offence. The court also found that two aggravating factors under section 104 of the Sentencing Act applied, necessitating the 17-year MPI. Ultimately, the court concluded that an MPI of 17 years would not cause manifest injustice and sentenced McLeod to life imprisonment with a 17-year MPI.

Orders