R v Roling - [2020] NZHC 2725

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2019-063-2075

[2020] NZHC 2725

THE QUEEN

v

NICHOLAS MARTIN ROLING

Counsel: A L McConachy and G Banuelos for Crown A M M Schulze for Defendant

Sentenced:

16 October 2020

Charge:

Murder

Plea:

Guilty

SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J

Solicitors:
Gordon Pilditch (Rotorua) for Crown

R v ROLING [2020] NZHC 2725 [16 October 2020]

Introduction

[1] Mr Roling, at the age of 54, you appear today for sentencing having pleaded guilty to the murder of Mr Ngatai. You shot Mr Ngatai in the back, after hiding near his house, waiting for him to return home.

[2] Your crime has had a devastating effect on Mr Ngatai’s whanau and friends. I have read statements from 16 of the whanau expressing their grief and loss. Mr Ngatai was a much-loved and much-needed son, partner, father, brother, nephew, cousin and friend.

[3] In sentencing you today, I cannot give back to the whanau what you have taken from them. That would be impossible. Instead, my job is to respond to your offending as the law requires.

[4] The sentence for murder is life imprisonment. Life imprisonment means what it says. You will spend the rest of your life in prison unless you can satisfy the Parole Board, after many years, that you are safe to be released back into the community. Even if that happens, you will still be subject to your sentence of life imprisonment. If, at some time in the future, you are released on parole, any further offending or breach of the terms of your parole would see you brought back to prison to continue serving your life sentence.

[5] The only question I have to decide today is your minimum period of imprisonment. The law requires a Judge, in a case of murder, to set a minimum period of imprisonment. That is not the sentence. The sentence is life imprisonment. The minimum period of imprisonment is simply the period during which the Parole Board does not have to assess you for possible release on parole.

[6] In your case, the starting point is 10 years’ minimum non parole. The Crown submits that this should be increased a little to 12 years. Your lawyer submits that 11 years would be more appropriate. It probably does not matter much because ultimately it will be for the Parole Board to decide when, if ever, you should be released on parole. However, that is the decision I now need to consider.

The offending

[7] I will start by going briefly through the facts as they are set out in the summary of facts to which you pleaded guilty.

[8] You were in an on-again, off-again relationship with Ms Brown for around three years. The two of you separated in 2017 and Ms Brown started a new relationship with Mr Ngatai.

[9] You resented Ms Brown for ending your relationship and as a result you did not…

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 Roling

Details

AGLC: R v Roling [2020] NZHC 2725
Case: [2020] NZHC 2725
Decision Date: 16 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Rotorua Registry, the defendant, Nicholas Martin Roling, appeared for sentencing following a guilty plea to the murder of Mr. Ngatai. Roling, aged 54, shot Mr. Ngatai in the back after lying in wait near his home. The court heard statements from 16 of Mr. Ngatai’s family members expressing their grief and loss, highlighting the profound impact of Roling’s crime on Mr. Ngatai’s whānau. The court acknowledged the devastating effect of the murder but focused on the legal requirement to impose a sentence for the offence. The sentence for murder in New Zealand is life imprisonment, with the primary question being the minimum period of imprisonment before the Parole Board can consider the possibility of parole.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment for Roling. The starting point for this calculation was 10 years, with the Crown arguing for an increase to 12 years and the defence suggesting 11 years would be more appropriate. The court considered various factors, including the planning and execution of the murder, Mr. Ngatai's vulnerability, Roling’s guilty plea, expressions of remorse, and his psychiatric disorder. Although these mitigating factors were acknowledged, the court placed limited weight on them, especially given the strong evidence against Roling and the absence of any history of serious violence.

The court ultimately decided on a minimum period of imprisonment of 11 years. It sentenced Roling to life imprisonment for the murder of Mr. Ngatai, with the order that he serve a minimum of 11 years before the Parole Board can consider his case for parole. The decision reflects the court's consideration of the severity of the crime and the mitigating factors presented, balancing these to determine an appropriate sentence under the law.

Orders