R v Rose

Case [2017] NZHC 1488 30 June 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI-2016-043-996 [2017] NZHC 1488

THE QUEEN

v

HELEN JOYCE ROSE

Hearing: 30 June 2017

Counsel:

J M Marinovich for Crown
P M Keegan for Defendant

Sentence:

30 June 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF THOMAS J

Introduction

[1] Ms Rose, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty on 26 May to the manslaughter of Rex Karaitiana. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.1

[2] In sentencing you I will first outline the summary of facts to which you pleaded guilty. I will then turn to the victim impact statements, your personal circumstances and the pre-sentence report. I will set a starting point for the sentence I am going to impose before making adjustments for your personal circumstances
and guilty plea.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 158, 160(2)(a), 171 and 177.

R v ROSE [2017] NZHC 1488 [30 June 2017]

Facts

[3] The deceased is your ex partner and was a patched member of Black Power. You had been in a relationship for approximately four years and resided together in Eltham.

[4] At about 5.00 pm on Wednesday 1 June 2016 you and Mr Karaitiana were at your home. You had both been consuming alcohol.

[5] An argument developed between the two of you over allowing

Mr Karaitiana’s son, also a member of Black Power, to be paroled to your address.

[6] During the argument Mr Karaitiana became violent and punched you around your head and body causing bruising to your ribs, small cuts around your eye and a black eye. After he assaulted you, you sent a text message to an associate which read “R U home if I need to come round. OMG I hate him so much. I swear if he touches me again I’ll stab the cunt, I’m ok he is just being a dick again”.

[7] The verbal argument continued. Mr Karaitiana sat down at a table but continued his verbal abuse and made statements to you such as “you’re gonna die bitch”. You swore at him.

[8] As Mr Karaitiana was sitting at the table and was turned away, you took out a small multifunction pocket knife from your pocket. He saw this and began laughing and said “bring it on bitch”. As Mr Karaitiana turned towards you and began to get up, you stabbed him with the knife in his upper back on his left side.

[9] After you did this Mr Karaitiana stood up and again punched you about the head and face. He continued to threaten you. He said “oh you are really gonna die you bitch” before walking out of the room.

[10] You fled the address and drove to Kaponga. You travelled to a friend’s place and told her you had stabbed the victim. You also travelled to other friends and told them what you had done. You gave the knife to one of your friends and told him he

should take it as the police would want it. While with your…

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 Rose

Details

AGLC: R v Rose [2017] NZHC 1488
Case: [2017] NZHC 1488
Decision Date: 30 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rose was heard by Thomas J in the High Court of New Zealand at New Plymouth. Ms Rose had pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Rex Karaitiana. The court was tasked with sentencing Ms Rose, considering the maximum penalty being life imprisonment. The legal issues before the court were to determine the appropriate sentence for manslaughter, taking into account factors such as the use of a weapon, the impact on the victim's family, the defendant's personal circumstances, and the mitigating factors of remorse, good character, and the time spent on electronic monitoring bail.

The court considered the starting point for sentencing by referencing similar cases where a weapon was used in the context of domestic violence and resulted in death. The court found the case to be more serious than some cases but less serious than others, ultimately settling on a starting point of three years and nine months imprisonment. The court then assessed the personal mitigating factors, including Ms Rose's genuine remorse, good character, and compliance with electronic monitoring bail. The court also took into account the four months Ms Rose had already spent in custody prior to the sentence. Based on these factors, the court decided that a sentence of home detention was appropriate, taking into account the issues of protection in custody and the disproportionately severe nature a term of imprisonment would have for Ms Rose.

The final sentence imposed by the court was eight months' home detention at the address specified in the report, with one special condition requiring Ms Rose to attend an assessment for any counselling, treatment, or program as directed by a probation officer and to attend and complete any recommended counselling, treatment, or program to the satisfaction of a probation officer. Standard post-detention conditions would also apply.

Orders