Legal Research
Cases
R v Munro

R v Munro

Case [2024] NZHC 151 12 February 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2023-270-000007

[2024] NZHC 151

THE KING

v

KRISJAIN JAMES MUNRO

Appearances:
S A Teki-Clark for Crown

R M Adams S M Price for Prisoner

Sentenced:

12 February 2024

SENTENCING NOTES OF ANDREW J

R v MUNRO [2024] NZHC 151 [12 February 2024]

Introduction

[1] Tēnā koe Mr Munro, Krisjain, you may remain seated if you wish until I have finished my remarks but that is up to you whether you stand or sit.

[2] Krisjain, you appear this morning for sentence having pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter.1 Your actions resulted in the death of your passenger and friend, Tamamutu Kinita. You are also being sentenced this morning on a charge of reckless driving causing injury2 because your actions resulted in the injury to Romeo Newton.

[3]The charge of manslaughter carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.3

[4] The charge of reckless driving causing injury carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment, a $20,000 fine and mandatory minimum one year disqualification.4

[5] It is not an easy task to pass sentence in a case like this Krisjain. The life of a young man was needlessly taken. A young man with a whole future in front of him and nothing I say, of course, can bring him back. But I must pass sentence on you – publicly and before your community. That community includes, importantly of course, the grieving whānāu of Tamamutu and your own grieving family. The Kinita whānāu has, of course, lost a son forever.

[6] I must mark on behalf of all the seriousness of your offending, the taking of a human life. It is my job today to find a sentence that fits the seriousness of your offence, but at the same time recognises your individual personal circumstances – and in particular here, it is important to recognise your young age.

[7] The critical issues I have to determine today are firstly, the starting point for the sentence – and you have heard the lawyers make submissions on that – and second, the important issue of to what extent should there be a discount for your personal

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 160(2)(b), 171, and 177.
2      Land Transport Act 1998, s 36(1)(a).
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 177.
4      Land Transport Act 1998, s 36(2).

circumstances. That will of course then determine the end sentence that I impose on you.

[8] I am going to begin my comments by addressing the facts of your offending as set out in the Police summary of facts, because of course I must sentence you on that basis.

Relevant facts

[9] On 17 June 2022, you were driving a Mazda Atenza motor vehicle in and around Mount Maunganui. Also driving a motor vehicle at that time was an associate of yours. The victim, Tamamutu, was a passenger in your vehicle. You had a New Zealand learners driver’s licence and so…

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 Munro

Details

AGLC: R v Munro [2024] NZHC 151
Case: [2024] NZHC 151
Decision Date: 12 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Munro before the High Court of New Zealand involved the sentencing of Krisjain James Munro, who had pleaded guilty to charges of manslaughter and reckless driving causing injury. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for Munro, who was responsible for the death of his passenger and friend, Tamamutu Kinita, and the injury of another individual, Romeo Newton. The court was required to determine the starting point for the sentence and the extent to which there should be a discount for Munro's personal circumstances.

The court found that the appropriate starting point for the sentence was five years’ imprisonment, considering factors such as the consumption of alcohol, excessive speed, and the fact that Munro was driving in breach of the conditions of his learners’ licence. The court also found that a total discount of 60 per cent from the starting point was appropriate to recognise Munro's personal mitigating factors, including his youth, guilty plea, previous good character, and remorse. Ultimately, the court decided that a sentence of home detention for 10 months was the appropriate end sentence, taking into account the various reports and the wishes of the victim's whānāu.

In conclusion, the court sentenced Munro to a term of home detention for 10 months for the manslaughter of Kinita and disqualified him from holding a driver’s licence for one year for the charge of injuring with intent to injure.

Orders