R v Rewa - [2019] NZHC 577

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-1997-404-198997

[2019] NZHC 577

THE QUEEN

v

MALCOLM REWA

Hearing: 26 March 2019

Appearances:

G Kayes, Z R Hamill and Y H Olsen for Crown P F Chambers for Prisoner

Sentenced:

26 March 2019

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Kayes Fletcher Walker Ltd, Manukau
Henley-Smith Law, Auckland

Counsel: P F Chambers, Auckland

R v REWA [2019] NZHC 577 [26 March 2019]

[1] Malcolm Rewa, on the night of 23 March 1992 you broke into Susan Burdett’s home. You attacked her. You raped her and you killed her. You killed her by hitting her at least five times to the head with a blunt object, her own baseball bat which she had for her protection. You left her body in the same way you had left a number of your other rape victims.

[2] At your first two trials the jury were unable to agree on the charge of murder. You were, however, convicted of Ms Burdett’s rape at your second trial. At your third trial the jury rejected your evidence and found you guilty on the charge of murder. The jury were satisfied there was no reasonable possibility your evidence was true. I understand why the jury came to that view. The evidence against you was overwhelming.

[3] DNA confirmed your semen was inside Ms Burdett. To explain that you said that you and she had had a consensual sexual relationship for some time and had had sex earlier that day, the day of her death, after she had taken drugs with you. By advancing that story you inflicted a further injustice and indignity on Ms Burdett and her memory. The evidence did not support any such relationship with you at all. The evidence was also very clear that Ms Burdett had an abhorrence for drugs. The family as victims have had to live with your refusal to accept responsibility for Ms Burdett’s death and the consequences and have had that hanging over them for 27 years.

[4] At the first two trials you were able to take advantage of a false confession by Mr Teina Pora, which has now been seen for what it was. You also took advantage of the fact Ms Burdett’s son had recently come into her life and financially benefitted from her death to suggest he had travelled from Whangarei and killed her in the middle of the night, and then returned to Whangarei to work the next morning. The jury rightly rejected that suggestion. It was without any evidential foundation. The evidence overwhelmingly established Ms Burdett returned home from bowling at about 11.15 to 11.20 pm on 23 March 1992 and was attacked about 20 minutes later and by you. At that time Ms Burdett’s son was still in Whangarei.

[5] You are currently serving preventive detention with a minimum non-parole period of 22 years. Justice Anderson imposed that sentence on you on 3 July…

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 Rewa

Details

AGLC: R v Rewa [2019] NZHC 577
Case: [2019] NZHC 577
Decision Date: 26 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Malcolm Rewa was convicted of the murder of Susan Burdett, which occurred on the night of 23 March 1992, following a home invasion and rape. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. The legal issues before the court involved whether imposing a life sentence on Rewa, in light of the Parole Act, would constitute a manifestly unjust outcome.

The court considered the Sentencing Act 2002, which mandates life imprisonment for murder unless it is deemed manifestly unjust. It was noted that applying a minimum non-parole period under the current law would result in a harsher penalty than what could have been imposed in 1992, when the offence occurred. However, the Parole Act 2002 stipulates a non-parole period of 10 years for a life sentence, potentially leading to an effective minimum non-parole period of around 30 years, given Rewa's existing 22-year non-parole period. The court had to determine if this would render a life sentence manifestly unjust.

The court's reasoning involved assessing the gravity of Rewa’s crimes, which included a brutal attack and rape, alongside his previous history of violent and manipulative behaviour. The court found no mitigating personal circumstances that would deem a life sentence unjust, considering Rewa's ongoing refusal to accept responsibility for his actions and the lack of genuine remorse. The potential for early parole consideration under exceptional circumstances was also noted as a factor that could influence the Parole Board's decision in the future.

In conclusion, the court determined that imposing a life sentence on Rewa would not be manifestly unjust. Consequently, Rewa was sentenced to imprisonment for life, to run concurrently with his existing sentence, for the murder of Susan Burdett.

Orders