1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 167 and 172.
2      This sentencing was delivered orally on 14 August 2020. The written form has been edited and footnoted before distribution.
3      Crimes Act 1961, ss 219(1)(a) and 223(b); maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
4      Section 226(1)(a); maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
5      Crimes Act 1961, s 228(1)(b); maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.

R v NGATAI [2020] NZHC 2106 [14 August 2020]

[3] You are also subject to the three-strikes regime.6 This means you face sentencing on a stage two offence.7 I will describe what that means later.

[4] You received a sentence indication from me in June of this year in which I concluded on the information I had then that a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (also called a MPI) of 16 years should be imposed.

[5] This was without the benefit of the other reports which I now have before me today. In particular they relate to the pre-sentence report information and the report on cultural matters obtained under s 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002 (Act).

Background

[6] Mr Ngatai many of the comments I am going to make in relation to the offending are the same as I made at the sentence indication.

[7] You were released from prison in April 2019 and one of the conditions of your release was that you did not come to Whanganui but you came anyway.

[8] On 20 September 2019 you were in Whanganui. You had been staying with the victim regularly and had a relationship with her for about six months. You had been moving between Whanganui and an address in Manaia.

[9] On that day the two young children of the victim were staying with other family members. You messaged her to see if you could stay with her. She said yes. After dinner you got into an argument, which you describe as a very serious argument, apparently about what you were going to do that evening. You became angry and say that was fuelled by drugs.

[10] After a struggle you grabbed the victim by her throat and squeezed her throat until she lost consciousness. You then stomped on the back of her head with your foot, dragged her body through the house to another room and covered her with blankets where you left her. You then took her purse and EFTPOS card. You…

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 Ngatai

Details

AGLC: R v Ngatai [2020] NZHC 2106
Case: [2020] NZHC 2106
Decision Date: 14 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Tyson Ellis Ngatai who was charged with the murder of his partner, theft, unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, and dishonestly using a document. The court was required to decide the appropriate sentence for Ngatai, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case. The court had to consider the nature of the murder, the post-murder conduct, the offender's culpability, and the purposes and principles of sentencing under the Sentencing Act 2002. The court also had to consider the three-strikes regime and the offender's prospects of rehabilitation.

The court found that while the murder was committed with a high level of brutality, cruelty, depravity, or callousness, it did not reach the level required under s 104(1)(e) in comparison to similar cases. However, the actions after the murder must also be considered. The court concluded that a 17-year minimum period of imprisonment should not apply in this case. The court then turned to consider setting a minimum period of imprisonment between 10 and 17 years under s 103. The court took into account the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case and determined that a term of imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 15 years was appropriate on the charge of murder.

The court sentenced Ngatai to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 15 years on the charge of murder, 12 months' imprisonment on the charge of unlawfully taking the victim's vehicle, and three years' imprisonment on each of the two representative charges of theft and unlawfully using a document, all sentences to be served concurrently.

Orders