R v Roper - [2013] NZHC 1687

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2011-009-001709 [2013] NZHC 1687

THE QUEEN

v

NIKKI DAVID ROPER

Hearing: 3 July 2013

Counsel: P A Currie and M Zintl for Crown
S J Shamy for Prisoner

Sentencing: 3 July 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF MILLER J

[1] Mr Roper, you murdered Alexsis Tovizi on the night of 5 December 2010. After killing her you converted her car, you stole her laptop, and you used her bankcard on five occasions to empty her bank account. These are crimes against her, her family and the community of which, like it or not, you form a part. The day of reckoning has been a long time coming. It was delayed by the earthquakes and by your own attempts to have evidence excluded. But it has finally arrived.

The facts

[2] I begin with the facts. You had been in a relationship of sorts with Ms Tovizi. It was a very unhealthy relationship, characterised by violence, jealousy and
obsession on your part.

R v ROPER [2013] NZHC 1687 [3 July 2013]

[3] The sequence of events matters because it highlights some important aggravating features of your crime. On 13 May 2009 you assaulted her. For this you were sent to prison, from which you were released on 7 December 2009. In preparation for that she obtained a temporary protection order against you, and that was made final on the 2nd of March 2010.

[4] In October of that year, you saw her with her partner, Daniel Edwards, who is known as Razak, and became so enraged that you tried to strangle her. This led to another short term of imprisonment. You were released on 1 December 2010. Shortly before your release you boasted to another prisoner that you would be back in prison for “the big one” because you were going to kill her.

[5] While you were in prison on that occasion, Ms Tovizi moved house and changed her phone number. She planned to have Mr Edwards move in. I want to record at this point the efforts to which her mother Cheryl went to keep Alexsis safe. Alexsis was an adult, but like many abused women she found it very difficult to bring a decisive end to the relationship. Cheryl insisted on the change of address and phone numbers and she supported the relationship with Mr Edwards. She even went so far as to threaten to have Tyson, Alexsis’s three year old son, removed should Alexsis see you. I hope it will be some small consolation to you, Mrs Tovizi, to learn that in my opinion no mother could have done more than you did to keep your daughter safe.

[6] Despite all of these precautions, Mr Roper, you made contact with Alexsis soon after your arrest. She went along with it, thinking she was able to handle you. You met her on 3 December at her new address, and I accept that she let you into the house.

[7] About 9.00…

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 Roper

Details

AGLC: R v Roper [2013] NZHC 1687
Case: [2013] NZHC 1687
Decision Date: 3 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Roper, the defendant, Nikki David Roper, was convicted of the murder of Alexsis Tovizi, along with various other charges including conversion, theft, and fraud. The case was heard by the High Court of New Zealand in Christchurch. The primary legal issue before the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for Roper's heinous crimes, taking into consideration the gravity of the murder, the history of abuse, and the aggravating factors surrounding the case.

The court meticulously examined the facts of the case, including the unhealthy and abusive relationship between Roper and Tovizi, marked by jealousy and violence. Despite multiple instances of imprisonment for assaulting Tovizi, Roper continued to harass and threaten her, culminating in her murder. The court highlighted the callous nature of the crime, as Roper not only killed Tovizi but also stole her property and attempted to cover up the crime. The significant impact on Tovizi’s family and young son, Tyson, was also a critical factor in the sentencing deliberations.

In delivering the sentence, the court underscored the mandatory life sentence for murder, with a minimum period of imprisonment set at 14 and a half years. This period was deemed necessary to reflect the serious aggravating features of the crime, including the history of abuse, immediate breach of a protection order, and the extensive efforts to evade detection. The court rejected submissions that no increase should be made for the evasion of detection, emphasizing the need for denunciation and accountability. Additionally, the court considered the high risk of reoffending but opted not to extend the minimum period on this ground alone. The court concluded that there were no mitigating factors, and Roper's choice to exercise his right to a trial precluded any discount on the sentence. Consequently, Roper was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of 14 and a half years, along with concurrent sentences for the other charges.

Orders