R v Pou

Case [2023] NZHC 2681 26 September 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2020-088-001445

[2023] NZHC 2681

THE KING

v

SAMUEL HEMUERA POU

Hearing: 26 September 2023

Appearances:

B O’Connor for the Crown

A Fairley and J Young for the Defendant

Judgment:

26 September 2023

(ORAL) SENTENCING NOTES OF WALKER J

R v POU [2023] NZHC 2681 [26 September 2023]

[1] Samuel Pou, you appear for sentence following a jury’s finding of guilt for the murder of Bridget Simmonds between 23 February 2019 and 16 March 2019.

[2] Before going any further, I first acknowledge members of Bridget’s family, both those who are present in court today and those who are not.

[3] Victims must not be lost sight of in the sentencing process. I have been provided with victim impact statements from and on behalf of members of Bridget’s family, namely from:

(a)Caroline Callen, Bridget’s mother, who recorded her statement before her death;

(b)Rachel Simmonds, Bridget’s sister read by Bridget’s cousin Marcus Callen;

(c)The Callen Family - being the five siblings of Bridget’s mother – read by Irene Callen.

[4] I have read those statements with care. They are a window into the lasting impact of not just Bridget’s death but the manner in which she died. The glimpse I have of Bridget is of a loving and much loved daughter, mother of two, sister, cousin, niece and friend to many. She has been described as a free spirit, an artist, an adventurer, and a genuinely good “old soul”.

[5] Mr Pou, it may be a forlorn hope, but I nonetheless do hope that the voices of Bridget’s family have left you with some sense of the depth of harm, grief and suffering caused by you—the uncertainty they had to endure over the period when Bridget was missing and the devastation when she was found in a makeshift, unmarked grave.

[6] I acknowledge the family’s dignity and courage shown this morning and thank them for the measured way in which they presented their statements.

Facts

[7] Although you are well aware of your offending, sentencing is conducted for and on behalf of the community and so I must set out the facts again. I begin with the lead up to the events on which you are to be sentenced today though these are matters for which you have already been sentenced following your guilty pleas.

[8] You and Bridget commenced a relationship towards the end of 2018. On 17 January 2019 you had an argument with her. You punched Bridget to the side of the head. As a result, she received a through and through laceration to her outer right ear. She sought medical attention that day.

[9] On 14 February 2019, you and Bridget had been socialising with friends. She wanted to stay. You wanted to leave. You considered Bridget ought to leave with you. When you both arrived back at the cabin you pushed Bridget onto the bed. You then placed two thumbs…

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 Pou

Details

AGLC: R v Pou [2023] NZHC 2681
Case: [2023] NZHC 2681
Decision Date: 26 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Samuel Pou was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand for the murder of Bridget Simmonds. The court acknowledged the impact on Bridget’s family, who presented victim impact statements highlighting the depth of grief and suffering caused by Pou. The court outlined the facts of the case, including the history of violence between Pou and Bridget, culminating in her murder. The sentencing process involved determining the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) for Pou, considering both aggravating and mitigating factors of the offence. The court found that the murder was committed with high levels of brutality, cruelty, and callousness, warranting the engagement of section 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002. Given the brutal nature of the crime and the vulnerability of the victim, the court imposed a minimum term of 17 years’ imprisonment, which Pou must serve before being eligible for parole. The court emphasized that the sentence of life imprisonment reflects the gravity of the crime and the need to protect the community.

Orders