R v Samson - [2021] NZHC 1335

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2019-025-001968

[2021] NZHC 1335

THE QUEEN

v

SAMUEL MOSES SAMSON

Hearing: 3 June 2021

Appearances:

M-J Thomas and R W Donnelly for the Crown

J M Ablett-Kerr QC and H T Young for the Defendant

Date:

3 June 2021

SENTENCING REMARKS OF NATION J

[1] Mr Samson, you are for sentence, a jury having found you guilty of murdering Azalia Wilson on 17 November 2019.

[2] I first acknowledge the family and close friends of Ms Wilson. I acknowledge your courage in reading your victim impact reports in Court and the way you did your best to confront Mr Samson with the suffering he has caused. I also commend you, as did Mr Donnelly, for the dignified way in which you conducted yourselves during the trial. In doing so, you honoured your memory of a much loved daughter, sister and close friend. Also the memory of a young mother who was caring for her baby, for Mr Samson’s baby.

R v SAMSON [2021] NZHC 1335 [3 June 2021]

[3] I also acknowledge those in Mr Samson’s whānau who are here to show your support for Mr Samson and to acknowledge that, whatever he had done, Mr Samson you remain part of your family and you have their support.

[4] All those present today need to understand that, before today, I had the benefit of detailed written submissions from counsel, I had a pre-sentence report from Corrections, a s 27 report that I will be referring to later, and cases that were referred to. So, I have had time to carefully consider what I must do, as the Judge in this case, and of course I presided over the trial and heard all the evidence. But it is important that all those who have a particular interest in this case know the background and know what has led to this day, and it does mean that my sentencing will take some time. All I can do is summarise that background.

[5] On 11 July 2019, Azalia Wilson gave birth to a daughter at Dunedin Hospital. The baby was about nine weeks premature. It was later confirmed you were the baby’s father. Without being sure that you were the father, you supported Azalia while she was in hospital and when she first returned to Invercargill with the baby to live with her family.

[6] Once it was confirmed that you were the father, you told Azalia you did not want to be in a relationship with her but you would support her as a mother 150 per cent.

[7]You were then aged about 31. Ms Wilson was aged 21.

[8] But, I accept the evidence that, after that time, you frequently wanted to know what contact Azalia was having with other people, you accused her of being involved with other people and you were controlling and possessive.

[9] On 4 October 2019, Azalia’s father organised…

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 Samson

Details

AGLC: R v Samson [2021] NZHC 1335
Case: [2021] NZHC 1335
Decision Date: 3 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Samson involved the sentencing of Samuel Moses Samson for the murder of Azalia Wilson, which occurred on 17 November 2019. The High Court of New Zealand, Invercargill Registry, presided over the sentencing hearing on 3 June 2021. The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for Samson, who had been found guilty of murder by a jury. The court had to consider various factors, including the nature of the crime, the background and history of the offender, and the impact of the crime on the victim's family.

In delivering the sentencing remarks, Justice Nation outlined the extensive evidence of the brutal and violent nature of the murder. Samson had inflicted severe injuries on Wilson, leading to her death, and had shown no remorse for his actions. The court acknowledged the aggravating factors of the crime, such as the premeditated nature of the attack, the use of a weapon, and the context of the crime within a domestic relationship. The court also considered mitigating factors, including Samson's background and personal history, as presented in a s 27 report. Despite the hardships Samson had faced in his upbringing and past experiences, the court found that these factors did not sufficiently mitigate the severity of his crime.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the appropriate sentence for Samson was life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years, as mandated by Section 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002. The court emphasized the need for accountability, deterrence, and protection of the public, while also acknowledging the potential for Samson to work towards rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The final orders of the court were that Samson be sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years.

Orders