R v Puna

Case [2018] NZHC 79 8 February 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2017-020-572 [2018] NZHC 79

THE QUEEN

v

JOHNNIE PUNA

Appearances:
S B Manning and M M Mitchell for the Crown

E J Forster for the Defendant

Sentencing:

8 February 2018

SENTENCING OF CULL J

[1] Mr Puna, you appear for sentence today having been found guilty by a jury of murder, I now enter the conviction.1 At the same time, I must give you a final three- strikes warning, which I do at the conclusion of this sentencing. While I read my sentencing notes Mr Puna you may sit down and I will ask you to stand again at the end when I formally sentence you.

[2] I should also add that you have pleaded guilty to two charges of theft under

$500, those convictions too are entered.2 The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment and that is the sentence I intend to impose upon you because, as all agree
here, there is no basis to do otherwise in our legislation.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 167(1)(a), 167(1)(b) and 172(1).
2 Sections 219(1)(a) and 223(d). Maximum penalty is three months’ imprisonment where the value of the property stolen does not exceed $500.

R v PUNA [2018] NZHC 79 [8 February 2018]

[3] However, your case is complicated as you are subject to what is known as the “three strikes” legislation. This legislation outlines the consequences that occur if a person commits more than one offence involving serious violence. You are subject to this regime because in 2016 you were convicted of aggravated robbery and given a first-strike warning. The facts there as Mr Manning quite properly acknowledged are a far cry from these, but I will return to those facts later in my sentencing notes. You were sentenced to nine months’ community supervision and six months’ community detention.

[4] You now face a conviction for murder. The effect of the three strikes legislation is that you must now be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole unless I am satisfied it would be manifestly unjust to impose this.3 After careful consideration, I have decided it would be manifestly unjust to impose a whole-of-life sentence on you. Both the Crown and your counsel agree with this course and I will deal with the reasons shortly.

[5] Instead, I will impose a sentence of life imprisonment with a long minimum non-parole period. The legislation requires me to impose a sentence with a minimum non-parole period of at least 10 years.4

[6] In sentencing you, I shall explain:

(a) your offending;

(b) your personal circumstances;

(c) the application of the three strikes regime to your case;

(d)what the appropriate sentence for you would be under the standard legislation for murder sentences; and

3 Sentencing Act 2002, s 86E.
4 Sections 86E(4)(b) and 103.

(e) why it would be manifestly unjust to impose life imprisonment without parole on you.

Your offending

[7] On 5 February 2017, you…

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 Puna

Details

AGLC: R v Puna [2018] NZHC 79
Case: [2018] NZHC 79
Decision Date: 8 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Johnnie Puna was convicted of murdering Mr Beale and was sentenced by Cull J in the High Court at Napier. Puna was also convicted of two counts of theft under $500. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for the murder conviction under the “three strikes” legislation, which requires life imprisonment without parole for a second serious violent offence unless manifestly unjust. The court also had to determine the appropriate minimum term of imprisonment for the murder and whether it would be manifestly unjust to impose life imprisonment without parole. The court considered Puna’s age, remorse, intoxication, cooperation with police, and prospects for rehabilitation. Cull J determined that a 17-year minimum term would be manifestly unjust due to Puna’s age, remorse, and intoxication. The court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with a 14-year minimum non-parole period for the murder, and one month imprisonment for each theft charge to be served concurrently. Cull J also issued a final three-strike warning to Puna.

Orders