R v Mete

Case [2020] NZHC 1573 3 July 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CRI-2019-083-00492

[2020] NZHC 1573

THE QUEEN

v

ERIC ARA METE

Hearing: 3 July 2020

Appearances:

M M Wilkinson-Smith for the Crown D Goodlet for the Defendant

Judgment:

3 July 2020

SENTENCING OF COOKE J

[1] Mr Mete you have pleaded guilty to one charge of murder. The victim was your partner, Ms Lorna-Anne Thompson. The two of you had been in a on and off again relationship for six to eight months. At the time of the offending you were living together.

[2] In the afternoon of Saturday 6 April 2019 you and Ms Thompson were at your flat in Ratana, Whanganui. An argument commenced in the living room. You became enraged and struck Ms Thompson numerous times in the face, aiming at her nose and eyes. The sheer force and number of blows caused multiple fractures to her skull. After an unknown period of time you stopped the assault. Upon seeing that she was non-responsive you realised that she was dead.

R v METE [2020] NZHC 1573 [3 July 2020]

[3] You then went to the bathroom and attempted to clean the blood off yourself. You then sat down and consumed methamphetamine and cannabis, eventually falling asleep.

[4] Later in the afternoon you left the flat and returned later that night. On your return you used an extension cord to tie Ms Thompson’s hands together in front of her and around her neck. You then dragged her body to another room and attempted to wipe up the blood on the floor.

[5] Four days later you travelled to Turangi and told a family member you had killed Ms Thompson. The family member advised police of your admission.

[6] After speaking with the family member you travelled back to Whanganui. You located a marked patrol car and advised the officer you were the person police were looking for.

[7] Subsequent post-mortem confirmed that Ms Thompson received severe trauma to her face causing her death.

Impact of the offending

[8] The Court has received victim impact statements from Ms Thompson’s mother, her eldest son, her 13 year old daughter and her brother.

[9] All have spoken of the impact of her death on the whānau. She will be remembered as a kind and loving person. Ms Thompson’s daughter describes her as a person with a big heart who was a healer. They all have feelings of deep distress, and there are also feelings of anger towards you. It is important that you understand that Ms Thompson is not the only victim of your actions, and that the harm you have caused will be long lasting. They say, and you must know this, the time you will serve in prison will never be enough for what you have done.

Approach to sentencing for murder

[10] Under s 102 of the Sentencing Act your conviction for murder means you must be sentenced for life imprisonment unless…

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 Mete

Details

AGLC: R v Mete [2020] NZHC 1573
Case: [2020] NZHC 1573
Decision Date: 3 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Eric Ara Mete, the defendant, faced the High Court of New Zealand in Whanganui, charged with the murder of his partner, Lorna-Anne Thompson. The defendant had pleaded guilty to the charge, which stemmed from a violent altercation that resulted in Ms. Thompson's death. The legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate minimum term of imprisonment for the defendant, considering the brutal nature of the crime and the defendant's personal circumstances, including his history of substance abuse and cultural background.

The court had to balance the principles of accountability, denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation against the backdrop of the defendant's personal history and the unique aspects of the case. The court acknowledged the high degree of brutality involved in the murder and the defendant's lack of remorse initially, as evidenced by his attempts to cover up the crime. However, the court also took into account the defendant's genuine remorse expressed later, his willingness to participate in rehabilitation programs, and the support of his family in aiding his reintegration into society. The court concluded that imposing a minimum term of imprisonment of 17 years would be manifestly unjust, given the defendant's potential for rehabilitation and the unique mitigating factors present in his case. Instead, the court determined that a minimum term of 14 years would be appropriate.

In its judgment, the court sentenced Eric Ara Mete to imprisonment for life, with a non-parole period of 14 years. This sentence reflects the court's consideration of both the severity of the crime and the potential for the defendant's rehabilitation, aiming to balance justice for the victim with the possibility of the defendant contributing positively to society upon his release.

Orders