Legal Research
Cases
R v Ormsby-Turner

R v Ormsby-Turner

Case [2023] NZHC 406 6 March 2023

Minimum Period of Imprisonment

Aggravating Factors

Mitigating Factors

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF PARTS OF THE JUDGMENT IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST

PERMITTED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2022-043-937

[2023] NZHC 406

THE KING

v

TURANGANUI JOHN ORMSBY-TURNER

Hearing: 6 March 2023

Counsel:

C E Clarke for Crown

P M Keegan for Defendant

Sentencing:

6 March 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF CHURCHMAN J

[1] Mr Turanganui Ormsby-Turner you appear for sentencing having pleaded guilty to murdering Rei Marshall.1

[2] You must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless it would be manifestly unjust to do so.2 Exceptional circumstances are required for a finding of manifest injustice. There is no suggestion that, in this case, such exceptional circumstances exist.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 167(b) and 172 – maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2 Sentencing Act 2002, s 102.

R v ORMSBY-TURNER (SENTENCING NOTES) [2023] NZHC 406 [6 March 2023]

[3] The issue to be determination by me today is the minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) that you must serve. The statute says that the MPI for murder is 10 years.3

[4]I will start by setting out the factual basis to the offending.

Factual basis to the offending

[5] On the evening of 3 August 2022, you and [another person]4 met an associate, Hamiora Laupama, at an address on South Road, New Plymouth. The reason for the meeting there was to pick up another associate, the victim’s brother, Jahrim Mataira, and to then collectively go and see someone who owed you money. The South Road address is a known Mongrel Mob address, and all those who met there were members of the Mongrel Mob and you were the president of the West Coast Chapter of the Mongrel Mob.

[6] When you, [the other person] and Mr Laupama were sitting in a car at the address, Mr Mataira and the victim arrived in the victim’s car. You and [the other person] became agitated when you saw the victim due to his affiliation with a rival gang, Uru Taha, and the fact there had been issues between the two gangs.

[7] You then instructed [the other person] and Mr Laupama to go inside the address and get Mr Mataira so you could go.

[8] The victim had been walking in and out of the house putting items of food in his car that he was going to take to his mother. On leaving the house, Mr Laupama and the victim crossed paths, at which time there was an exchange of words between the two. Mr Laupama thought they were going to have a fight. The two walked towards one another. The victim aimed a punch that missed. You had with you a large black knife, approximately 25 centimetres in length. You moved from a position behind the victim and you stabbed the victim once in his torso with that knife. The knife penetrated the victim’s ribs and vital…

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 Ormsby-Turner

Details

AGLC: R v Ormsby-Turner [2023] NZHC 406
Case: [2023] NZHC 406
Decision Date: 6 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ormsby-Turner involved the sentencing of Turanganui John Ormsby-Turner for the murder of Rei Marshall. The court was tasked with determining the minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) that Ormsby-Turner must serve. The statutory minimum penalty for murder is life imprisonment, but exceptional circumstances must exist for a departure from this presumption. The court considered various factors, including the gravity of the offence, the need for accountability, deterrence, and community protection, and the mitigating factors presented by the defence. After considering the submissions from both the Crown and the defence, the court determined a starting point for the MPI of 13 years, taking into account the gang-related nature of the crime, the use of a weapon, and the defendant's role as the president of the West Coast chapter of the Mongrel Mob. The court then applied discounts for Ormsby-Turner's guilty plea and personal circumstances, resulting in a final MPI of 10 and a half years' imprisonment. Ormsby-Turner was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of 10 and a half years' imprisonment for the murder of Rei Marshall.

Orders