R v Namana - [2021] NZHC 3160

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2018-012-000260

[2021] NZHC 3160

THE QUEEN

v

WIREMU PAUL NAMANA

Hearing: 5 November 2021

Appearances:

R P Bates and C E R Power for the Crown

J M Ablett-Kerr QC and J A Westgate for the Defendant

Date:

5 November 2021

SENTENCING REMARKS OF NATION J

[1] Mr Namana, I must now sentence you for the murder of David Clark and Anastasia Neve on 21 January 2018, and for arson in setting fire to their home at 66B Wesley Street with reckless disregard for the safety of that property.

[2] I begin by acknowledging the friends and family of the victims who are here in Court, the family of Dave and Stacey as you referred to them. I appreciate the way you have been able to describe the ways you valued them as individuals despite the difficulties they faced in their lives. I appreciate the way in which you have been able to describe what you miss in not having them in your lives, as a son and daughter, as a sister, a brother or as a parent. You have described the shock that you experienced at hearing of their deaths and then the greater shock of finding out they had been murdered. In a number of the victim impact reports, you describe your grief and

R v NAMANA [2021] NZHC 3160 [5 November 2021]

sadness at not being able to view them after they had died because of the injuries they had suffered. I also acknowledge the particular ordeal you have faced through the time it has taken to get to this point where Mr Namana has admitted his guilt and is to be sentenced.

[3] My remarks now are about what sentence the law requires me to impose on Mr Namana. So, inevitably, a lot of my remarks have to be about him. Your victim impact statements have been important in reminding me that he has to be sentenced for the needless murder of two people whose lives ended in horrible circumstances, and the intense shock, grief and lingering sorrow that has been caused to those close to both of them.

[4] Mr Namana, you and all those who are in Court need to know that, before today, I have been provided with information about your background and the matters I must consider when arriving at the appropriate sentence for you, including the thorough submissions from your counsel Mrs Ablett-Kerr and from the Crown.

[5] I also observed and listened to you in the 14 hours of Police interviews which you participated in early in the Police investigation, and I heard evidence from psychiatrists with information as to your use of illicit drugs around that time.

[6]I begin by giving a brief summary of the offending.

[7] It is accepted that you suffered an intravenous drug addiction which worsened up until January 2018. You abused several different types of drugs but…

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 Namana

Details

AGLC: R v Namana [2021] NZHC 3160
Case: [2021] NZHC 3160
Decision Date: 5 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Wiremu Paul Namana was sentenced for the murder of David Clark and Anastasia Neve, as well as for arson in setting fire to their home. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the legal framework provided by the Sentencing Act 2002. The primary issue was the calculation of the minimum period of imprisonment under Section 104 of the Act, which mandates a minimum of 17 years for certain specified circumstances unless a manifest injustice would result.

The court assessed the culpability of the offence, taking into account the brutality and callousness of the murders, the vulnerability of the victims, and the defendant's history of violence and drug addiction. The court also considered mitigating factors, including the defendant's guilty plea and his history of abuse and neglect, mental health issues, and drug addiction. Despite these factors, the court concluded that the circumstances warranted the minimum period of 17 years, as mandated by Section 104 of the Sentencing Act.

The final orders were that Wiremu Paul Namana was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of 17 years for each murder charge, and two years for the arson charge, all to be served concurrently.

Orders