R v Meha

Case [2013] NZHC 2957 8 November 2013

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI 2012-077-1100 [2013] NZHC 2957

THE QUEEN

v

JUDITH MEREL ANE MEHA

Hearing: 8 November 2013

Counsel: N Tahana for the Crown
H S Edward for Ms Meha

Sentence: 8 November 2013

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MALLON J

Introduction

[1] Ms Meha, you appear for sentencing today having been convicted following trial of three counts of arson1 and one count of attempted arson.2

[2] I know that you maintain your innocence. But you are to be sentenced on the basis of the jury’s verdicts and the convictions I entered on the basis of those verdicts.

Circumstances of offending

[3] The charges against you arose from the lighting of four fires at the home of

Mr Gillard, your former partner. You met Mr Gillard through an internet dating site.

In February 2012 you moved into Mr Gillard’s home in Tokoroa. Your relationship

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 267(1)(b) and (c) with a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
2 Section 268 with a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.

R v MEHA [2013] NZHC 2957 [8 November 2013]

was initially good but it deteriorated, and in July 2012 Mr Gillard asked you to move out. He helped you move to another address in Tokoroa. Soon after you moved out Mr Gillard began receiving a number of text messages from a number that was unknown to him. They were purportedly from a friend of yours, although it seems that they were in fact from you, and were about Mr Gillard getting back together with you.

[4] On 2 September 2012 Mr Gillard made it clear to you that you would not be getting back together. After this the text messages from the unknown number were of a more threatening nature. Again it seems these were all from you. On 5
September 2012 you sent a text message from this number saying “Wally you could have had it all. All you needed to do was support her and be there and now you’ve thrown it all away”. You sent more text messages later that evening: at 8.25 pm “I’m going to make your life hell”, at 8.36 pm “You have hurt Judy for the last time and now it’s my turn to make your life hell”, at 8.57 pm “How safe is your home”, at
9.01 pm “Are you shitting yourself”, and at 9.02 pm “You’ve got a very nice house. I know where you live”.

[5] It was after this that you embarked on setting fires at Mr Gillard’s house. His house is of wooden construction with exterior weatherboard cladding. The house and grounds are kept very neat and tidy as was evident from the photos produced at trial. As Mr Gillard says, his house was his pride and joy. After you moved out of the house in July 2012 he lived there alone.

[6] The first fire at Mr Gillard’s home occurred on 7 September 2012. Mr Gillard’s usual routine was to set…

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 Meha

Details

AGLC: R v Meha [2013] NZHC 2957
Case: [2013] NZHC 2957
Decision Date: 8 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Ms Judith Meha was convicted of three counts of arson and one count of attempted arson. The defendant maintained her innocence throughout the trial and sentencing phase. The offending arose from the defendant setting four fires at the home of her former partner, Mr Gillard. The fires were set after a series of threatening text messages were sent to Mr Gillard. The defendant’s personal circumstances were considered by the court, including her difficult upbringing, mental health, and family support. The court determined a starting point of five and a half years' imprisonment for the offending, taking into account the number of fires, the degree of premeditation, and the emotional harm caused to the victim. The court found mitigating factors, including the defendant’s good character and lack of previous convictions, but also considered the risk of reoffending. The defendant was ultimately sentenced to a term of imprisonment of four years and six months, with concurrent sentences for each count.

Final orders: The defendant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of four years and six months, with concurrent sentences of three years for count 3, and one year each for counts 1 and 2. No minimum period of imprisonment is imposed, and no reparation is ordered.

Orders