R v Roigard - [2016] NZHC 166

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI 2014-043-1801 [2016] NZHC 166

THE QUEEN

v

DAVID NOEL ROIGARD

Hearing: 15 February 2016

Counsel:

C E Clarke and J M Marinovich for Crown
P M Keegan and J Woodcock for Defendant

Judgment:

15 February 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF HEATH J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, New Plymouth
Counsel:
P M Keegan, New Plymouth
J Woodcock, New Plymouth

R v ROIGARD [2016] NZHC 166 [15 February 2016]

Introduction

[1] David Noel Roigard, you appear for sentence today on one charge of murder and eight charges of theft in a special relationship. You were found guilty by a jury on each of those charges and convictions have been entered. You have also been given a three strikes warning, as required by law. The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment. The maximum for theft in a special relationship is seven years imprisonment.

[2] As a result of your conviction on the murder charge you will be sentenced to life imprisonment. The only issue for my consideration today is the length of the period to be fixed before you may apply for parole.

[3] There is sometimes misunderstanding in the community about the effect of the minimum period of imprisonment that is imposed in conjunction with a life sentence. The period I will fix simply determines the first occasion on which you are eligible to apply for parole. There is no guarantee that you will be granted parole, either on the first application you make or at any later time. The Parole Board must consider at the relevant time whether you remain a risk to the community.

[4] Even if you were to be granted parole, you would be subject to conditions for the rest of your life and amenable to arrest in the event that the conditions were breached. If you were returned to prison in those circumstances, you would continue to serve a sentence of life imprisonment. So, the sentence I impose today really is life imprisonment.

[5] The lead charge for sentencing is murder. I propose to treat the circumstances in which you committed the eight offences of theft in a special relationship as aggravating factors relating to that offence.

[6] While I will impose a concurrent term of imprisonment on the theft charges, I have ensured no double counting occurs in the fixing of those terms. The circumstances in which the thefts occurred provided the motive for you to kill your son, Aaron.

Context

[7] I will now explain the background to the offending. Necessarily, in light of the nature of the Crown’s circumstantial case, my summary will be incomplete and selective.

[8] Aaron was killed at your property in Waiteika Road near Opunake on 2 June

2014. Although Aaron’s body has never been found and nobody witnessed what took place between the two of you around midday on 2 June 2014, the jury were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you killed your son with murderous intent.…

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 Roigard

Details

AGLC: R v Roigard [2016] NZHC 166
Case: [2016] NZHC 166
Decision Date: 15 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

David Noel Roigard was found guilty of the murder of his son, Aaron, and eight charges of theft in a special relationship. The High Court of New Zealand was required to determine the length of the non-parole period for Roigard's life sentence for murder. The court identified two aggravating factors: the murder was committed to avoid detection for other offences and was committed with a high level of callousness. The court held that these factors brought the crime within the scope of s 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002, which mandates a minimum non-parole period of 17 years for certain murders. The court determined that the appropriate minimum non-parole period was 19 years. Roigard was also sentenced to three years and six months' imprisonment for each theft charge, to be served concurrently.

The final orders were that Roigard is sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, with a minimum non-parole period of 19 years. He is also sentenced to three years and six months' imprisonment for each of the eight theft charges, to be served concurrently.

Orders