R v P

Case [2022] NZHC 2197 31 August 2022

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2020-019-006696

[2022] NZHC 2197

THE QUEEN

v

P

Hearing: 31 August 2022

Appearances:

Jacinda Hamilton and Kaleb Whyte for the Crown Kerry Burroughs for the Defendant

Sentencing Notes:

31 August 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF MOORE J

R v P [2022] NZHC 2197 [31 August 2022]

Introduction

[1] P,1 at the age of 34, you appear for sentence on a single charge of murder. On 16 June this year, you pleaded guilty to the murder of H.2 The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.

The offending

[2] It is first necessary for me to set out the facts of your offending. Of course, no one will know them better than you. But because sentencing is a judicial function which must be undertaken in public it is necessary for me to describe them, particularly those which will inform the sentence I shall impose.

[3] The facts are contained in a summary which you accepted when you pleaded guilty. There is no dispute about them.

[4] H was your long-term partner. The two of you began your relationship some 15 years ago. You were teenagers at the time. When she was 16, H moved into your home with your parents. Approximately two years into your relationship, you and H had your first child together. You went on to have another four more children together although one died shortly after he was born. At the time you killed H your surviving children were aged 13, 10, 4 and four months.

[5] Your relationship was a volatile one. You commonly abused H both verbally and physically. You hit her and you gave her “hidings”. You were controlling, often preventing her from leaving the home or requiring her to return on those occasions when she did venture out.

[6] On 16 December 2020, you were at home with H and your children. Sometime during the day, you badly beat her. You broke her nose and you caused bruising to her scalp and face.

1 P has interim name suppression. The matter is listed for mention on 13 September 2022 at which time it is expected timetabling orders will be made and the application for permanent name suppression will be set down for hearing.
2 Crimes Act 1961, ss 167(a) and 172. Maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

[7] Later that evening, your eldest son contacted your mother asking her to come over. He feared you would have another “fight”. Your mother video-called H. H signalled that she needed help. Plainly she was terrified you might find out that she was talking with your mother. She was forced to communicate in a non-verbal way so you wouldn’t hear and subject her to more violence.

[8] At around 9:15 pm, your mother arrived at your home. She attempted to mediate. Because of your behaviour, she arranged for your father to pick up the two older children.

[9] H went into one…

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 P

Details

AGLC: R v P [2022] NZHC 2197
Case: [2022] NZHC 2197
Decision Date: 31 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, P, was sentenced by Moore J in the High Court of New Zealand, Hamilton Registry, on a charge of murder. P pleaded guilty to murdering his long-term partner, H, by stabbing her 17 times. The court was required to determine the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) for P's sentence. The main legal issues were whether the aggravating factors outlined in s 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002 applied and if it would be manifestly unjust to impose a minimum period of imprisonment of at least 17 years.

The court found that the murder was committed with a high level of brutality, cruelty, depravity, or callousness, and the deceased was particularly vulnerable. The court determined that the appropriate notional MPI was 17 years and six months' imprisonment. After considering P's personal circumstances and guilty plea, the court concluded that the appropriate notional MPI was 16 years and six months' imprisonment. The court found that it would not be manifestly unjust to impose a minimum period of imprisonment of at least 17 years.

P was sentenced to life imprisonment with an MPI of 17 years. This means that P must remain in prison for at least 17 years before being considered for release by the Parole Board.

Orders