R v Puata-Chaney - [2023] NZHC 1980

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-090-002350

[2023] NZHC 1980

THE KING

v

MIKAERE PUATA-CHANEY

Hearing: 27 July 2023

Appearances:

A M McClintock and I L M Archibald for Crown R M Mansfield KC and B M Gloyn for Defendant

Sentence:

27 July 2023

SENTENCE OF EDWARDS J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Meredith Connell (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Auckland R M Mansfield KC, Auckland

R v PUATA-CHANEY [2023] NZHC 1980 [27 July 2023]

[1] Mr Puata-Chaney, you are here today because you murdered two people: Eliza and Geoffrey Trubuhovich. You pleaded guilty to those murders and now you are to be sentenced.

[2] The sentence for murder is life imprisonment unless such a sentence would be manifestly unjust. There is no suggestion that such a sentence would be unjust in your case and so life imprisonment will be your sentence.

[3] The question to be decided today is the length of time you must spend in prison before parole even becomes a possibility. That is the minimum period of imprisonment or MPI as we call it. Everyone agrees that it will be at least 17 years. The only issue is whether it will be more.

[4] Determining the MPI involves following a process. The first part of that process is setting out the circumstances of your offending. Next, I will consider a starting point for the MPI which reflects the seriousness of your offending. That starting point will then be adjusted for factors personal to you. At the end of what I have to say this morning, I will ask you to stand, and that is when I will deliver your sentence.

[5] Before I start on that process, I want to acknowledge the close family members and friends of Eliza and Geoffrey who are here today. I want to make special mention of Geoffrey’s wife; Eliza’s mother and Eliza’s brother. It is a hugely emotional day. I will talk about the impact of these murders shortly, but I wanted to say something at the outset to acknowledge your trauma, and the courage it takes to be here today.

The offending

[6] The first step in the process is to describe the offending. I realise this will be hard for many in this courtroom to hear, but it is a necessary step.

[7] Mr Puata-Chaney, you and Eliza had been in a relationship for approximately one year. You had been separated for a number of months, but still had contact as you shared a dog, Rocka.

[8] In the months leading up to the shooting, Eliza told her friends that you had been threatening towards her, particularly over your concern that she was seeing someone else. Then, on Friday, 15 July 2022, you and Eliza argued on the phone.

[9] After the argument, you left your home with a soft guitar case containing a firearm and a box of ammunition. You travelled seven and a half kilometres to where Eliza…

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 Puata-Chaney

Details

AGLC: R v Puata-Chaney [2023] NZHC 1980
Case: [2023] NZHC 1980
Decision Date: 27 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, presided over by Justice Edwards, heard the case of the King versus Mikaere Puata-Chaney. The defendant had pleaded guilty to the murders of Eliza and Geoffrey Trubuhovich, and the court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, particularly the minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) before parole eligibility. The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of the MPI, which should reflect the gravity of the offence and the sentencing purposes of accountability, denunciation, deterrence, and community protection.

The court meticulously outlined the brutal details of the crime, where the defendant, after a history of threats and a contentious separation from Eliza, executed a premeditated attack on Eliza and Geoffrey at their home. The attack was marked by extreme violence, disregard for human life, and the presence of multiple witnesses, including family members. The court received and considered numerous victim impact statements that highlighted the profound grief and lasting trauma inflicted on the family and friends of the victims.

In establishing the starting point for the MPI, the court compared the offence to other cases of double murder, noting the similarities and differences in circumstances and severity. The court concluded that a starting point of 23 years was appropriate, acknowledging the defendant's use of a lethal weapon in a residential area, which heightened the risk and terror experienced by the community. After considering personal factors such as the defendant's background, substance abuse, and expressions of remorse, the court adjusted the MPI accordingly. Mitigations included a six-month discount for background factors, six months for remorse, and a two-year discount for the guilty plea.

Ultimately, the court sentenced Mikaere Puata-Chaney to life imprisonment with a minimum period of 20 and a half years before parole eligibility, reflecting the severe nature of the crimes and the need to uphold the purposes of sentencing.

Orders