R v Patuwai - [2021] NZHC 675

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TŪRANGANUI-A-KIWA ROHE

CRI-2019-065-91

[2021] NZHC 675

THE QUEEN

v

TIHEI PATUWAI and REUBEN WAYNE HIRA GIBSON-PARK

Hearing: 30 March 2021

Appearances:

S B Manning and A Bryant for Crown E J Forster for Mr Patuwai

M W Ryan and J Hudson for Mr Gibson-Park

Sentence:

30 March 2021

SENTENCE OF COOKE J

[1] Tihei Patuwai, Reuben Gibson-Park, you are here today to be sentenced for the murder of Raymond Neilson following the verdict of the jury on 25 November 2020. Mr Gibson-Park, you are also to be sentenced on the charge of arson for which you were also found guilty.

[2] In explaining the sentence that I am going to impose I will first outline the facts of your offending and I will then explain the approach that is taken to the sentence for murder. I will then address circumstances that are relevant to your sentences before formally imposing them.

[3] There is a strict approach followed in relation to the sentence for murder. The required sentence is life imprisonment except in limited circumstances. It is not

R v PATUWAI and GIBSON-PARK [2021] NZHC 675 [30 March 2021]

suggested that those limited circumstances could apply here. There is then a question of the minimum period of imprisonment that accompanies that life sentence – that is the time you must spend in prison before you can be considered for parole. The circumstances of your offending involve a minimum period of 17 years unless imposing that period is manifestly unjust, and I will consider whether that could be the case here.

The Facts

[4] I deal first with the facts. The murder of Mr Neilson arose as a consequence of a chance encounter with him. Mr Gibson-Park, you did not know Mr Neilson. Mr Patuwai, you only knew him from your youth as you both grew up in Tokomaru Bay. On 14 December 2019 both of you were attending an end of year function for your logging crew in Tokomaru Bay. There was an open bar and you both consumed a significant amount of alcohol. At the end of the function you were in two vehicles with others that left the function driving around looking for further activity. As the vehicles travelled along Waima Road you came across Mr Neilson who was walking home after the evening out.

[5] Mr Gibson-Park, as you drove past Mr Neilson, Mr Neilson called out and hit the side of your vehicle. This angered you, and you did a U-turn and returned and parked in front of Mr Neilson, got out of your vehicle and confronted him. The other vehicle followed you. You then attempted to assault Mr Neilson but because you were in an intoxicated state you were not able to get hold of him. One of the passengers in the vehicles tried to persuade you to stop but to no avail. Mr Neilson then ran off and up Tawhiti…

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 Patuwai

Details

AGLC: R v Patuwai [2021] NZHC 675
Case: [2021] NZHC 675
Decision Date: 30 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendants, Tihei Patuwai and Reuben Gibson-Park, were convicted of the murder of Raymond Neilson and the defendant Gibson-Park was also convicted of arson. The case was heard and sentenced by Justice Cooke of the High Court of New Zealand. The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for the defendants' crimes, specifically the minimum period of imprisonment for the murder charge, and whether it was manifestly unjust to impose the statutory minimum term of 17 years. Additionally, the court had to determine the sentence for the arson charge committed by Gibson-Park.

Justice Cooke outlined the statutory framework for sentencing murder, which mandates life imprisonment unless manifestly unjust, and the factors that necessitate a minimum imprisonment period of at least 17 years, which include unlawful entry into a dwelling and the level of brutality, cruelty, depravity, or callousness. The court considered the defendants' personal circumstances, including their background, character, and expressions of remorse, but found that these factors did not significantly mitigate the severity of the crimes. The court also examined the impact of the defendants' actions, such as the brutal nature of the assault and the attempt to conceal the crime through arson. After weighing these factors, the court determined that imposing the 17-year minimum term was not manifestly unjust and thus imposed life imprisonment with a 17-year minimum term for both defendants. Gibson-Park also received a concurrent sentence of 4 years for the arson charge.

The final orders of the court were that Tihei Patuwai be sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of 17 years for the murder of Raymond Neilson, and Reuben Gibson-Park be sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of 17 years for the murder and an additional 4 years for the arson charge, to be served concurrently.

Orders