Hearing: 17 June 2016

Appearances:

M Smith and J P Scott for the Crown
L Postlewaight and T Donald for Mr Pomare
C Cull and A Dooney for Mr Perkinson

Sentence:

17 June 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF WYLIE J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Whangarei
C Cull, Kaikohe
L Postlewaight, Whangarei

R v POMARE & ANOR [2016] NZHC 1346 [17 June 2016]

Introduction

[1] Mr Pomare and Mr Perkinson, you may remain seated until I ask you to stand.

[2] Mr Pomare, you have pleaded guilty to a charge of murdering Michael

Griffin at Whangarei on or about 5 October 2014.

[3] Mr Perkinson, you have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Mr Griffin.

[4] Mr Pomare, you entered your plea after I gave you a sentence indication on

13 April 2016. You accepted a summary of facts, which had been prepared by the Crown, and I gave you the sentence indication by reference to that summary of facts. You have not sought to resile from it and both your counsel, Ms Postlewaight, and Mr Smith, for the Crown, have asked me to sentence you by reference to it.

[5] Mr Perkinson, you did not request a sentence indication. Rather you entered your plea after Mr Pomare had pleaded guilty to Mr Griffin’s murder. You did not sign a copy of the summary of facts at the time. As a result, you have been able to negotiate a slightly different summary of facts with the Crown. Ms Cull requests, and Mr Smith accepts, that I must sentence you by reference to this negotiated summary of facts. Mr Smith has not sought a disputed facts hearing, and there is no point in me directing such a hearing. The only persons who can now say what happened on 4/5 October 2014 are you and Mr Pomare and I do not anticipate that either of you would assist.

[6] This puts me in the unusual position of having to sentence each of you, as co- offenders involved in the same offending, by reference to different summaries of facts. That is unfortunate. Nevertheless, I am required by law to do so.

Mr Pomare

[7] Mr Pomare, I will sentence you first.

The Charge - Murder

[8] You have pleaded guilty to murder. Everyone who commits murder is liable to imprisonment for life, unless, given the circumstances of the offence and the offender, a sentence of life imprisonment would be manifestly unjust. The minimum term of imprisonment ordered may not be less than 10 years, and must be the minimum term of imprisonment that the Court considers necessary to satisfy all or any of the following purposes:

(a) to hold you accountable for the harm done to the victim and to the community by your offending;

(b) to denounce the conduct in which you were involved;

(c) to deter you or others from committing the…

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 Pomare

Details

AGLC: R v Pomare [2016] NZHC 1346
Case: [2016] NZHC 1346
Decision Date: 17 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pomare involved the sentencing of Elias Pomare and Hayden Kenna Rua Perkinson for their roles in the murder of Michael Griffin. Pomare pleaded guilty to murder, while Perkinson pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The High Court of New Zealand was tasked with determining the appropriate sentences for each defendant, considering their individual roles in the crime, mitigating factors, and the circumstances surrounding the offence. The court was required to decide whether a mandatory minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years, as stipulated by section 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002, would be manifestly unjust for Pomare, given his age and other mitigating factors. For Perkinson, the court had to determine an appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering his limited physical involvement in the assault and his guilty plea to manslaughter.

The court found that Pomare's attack on Griffin was brutal and exhibited a high degree of brutality, callousness, and cruelty, warranting a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years. However, due to Pomare's youth, psychological condition, and limited remorse, the court determined that a 17-year minimum term would be manifestly unjust. Instead, the court sentenced Pomare to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 12 years, taking into account his age, mental health, and guilty plea. For Perkinson, the court considered his limited physical involvement in the assault and his guilty plea, and sentenced him to three years and two months imprisonment for manslaughter, without imposing a minimum term of imprisonment.

Orders