R v Roberts - [2012] NZHC 1384

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2005-092-014492 [2012] NZHC 1384

THE QUEEN

v

BUDDY ROBERTS

Appearances: R J A Marchant for Crown
P E Dacre for Prisoner

Judgment: 19 June 2012

SENTENCING NOTES OF COURTNEY J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, P O Box 2213, Auckland 1140
Fax: (09) 336-7629 – R Marchant

Counsel: P E Dacre, P O Box 47963, Ponsonby, Auckland 1144
Fax: (09) 376-4675

R V ROBERTS HC AK CRI-2005-092-014492 [19 June 2012]

[1] Mr Roberts, you appear for sentence today for the murder of your former partner, Samantha Rangiawha, whose family called her Piri. This happened in December 2005 but you were subsequently found unfit to stand trial. After you were arrested in 2005 you were held in a special unit at Mt Eden Prison as a result of your mental health issues. Since June 2008 you have been detained at the Mason Clinic
as a special patient.[1] It is only now, after several years of treatment, that it is

possible to resolve matters. Earlier this year you entered a plea of guilty to the murder charge.

[1] Pursuant to s 24(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003.

[2] In 2005 you and Ms Rangiawha were living together in a caravan in Otahuhu. Ms Rangiawha had children from a previous relationship who had been removed from her care. You and she had a six-month-old baby who had also been removed from your care. On the night of Ms Rangiawha’s death the two of you had been sniffing solvents. Later you argued and there was violence used on both sides. In the end Ms Rangiawha came to be on the ground. You picked up a concrete slab weighing over 20 kilos and smashed it onto her head more than once.

[3] The victim impact statements from Ms Rangiawha’s mother and sister speak of the grief and loss that her family experienced, not only of Ms Rangiawha herself, but also the relationship they had with her children and that includes the children that you and she had together. It is clear that they both blame you, not only for Ms Rangiawha’s death but also for the period leading up to that time when you and she drank, used drugs and sniffed solvents.

[4] In sentencing on a murder charge I am required to impose a life sentence of imprisonment unless, in the circumstances, such a sentence would be manifestly unjust.[2] The circumstances of this case do not make that usual sentence of life imprisonment unjust. This was a dreadful murder involving the use of a weapon in the form of a concrete block and has not only caused loss to Ms Rangiawha’s immediate family, but has deprived her children of their mother. It seems likely that
you were affected by solvents and possibly alcohol as well at the time of the killing.

Although you have certainly suffered from a serious mental illness since that time it is not suggested that those factors caused or…

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 Roberts

Details

AGLC: R v Roberts [2012] NZHC 1384
Case: [2012] NZHC 1384
Decision Date: 19 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The Queen v Roberts, heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, involves the sentencing of Buddy Roberts for the murder of his former partner, Samantha Rangiawha, also known as Piri. Roberts was found unfit to stand trial initially due to his mental health issues but later pleaded guilty to the charge. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Roberts, considering his mental health status and the nature of the crime. The central legal issue was whether a life sentence of imprisonment was appropriate, or if alternative measures under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 should be applied.

The court considered Roberts's personal background, which included a history of substance abuse and association with criminal activities, alongside his diagnosed paranoid schizophrenia. The judge noted the severity of the crime, involving the use of a heavy object as a weapon, and the profound impact on Rangiawha's family, including her children. Despite Roberts's mental health issues, the court determined that these did not excuse his actions. The judge also examined whether a life sentence would be manifestly unjust under the circumstances, concluding that it was not.

The court ultimately decided on a hybrid sentence, combining a life term of imprisonment with a compulsory treatment order under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. This decision was based on the necessity for Roberts to continue receiving mental health treatment in a hospital setting, given the risks associated with his potential discontinuation of medication in a prison environment. The judge found that this approach would best serve both Roberts's need for treatment and public safety. The sentence includes a minimum period of 10 years before Roberts may be considered for parole, reflecting the gravity of the offence.

Orders