R v Samson - [2017] NZHC 1632

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2014-009-3764 [2017] NZHC 1632

THE QUEEN

v

ZARIAH JAE SAMSON

Hearing: 14 July 2017

Appearances:

B Hawes for Crown
J Eaton QC for Defendant

Judgment:

14 July 2017

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MANDER J

Three strikes warning

[1] Ms Samson, I am about to proceed to the imposition of sentence. Before I do that I am required under the Sentencing Act to firstly give you what is described as the “three strikes warning”.

[2] Given your conviction on the charge of manslaughter you are now subject to the three strikes law. I am going to give you a warning of the consequences of another serious violence conviction. You will also be provided with a written notice which contains a list of these serious violence offences.

[3] The warning is this: If you are convicted of any one or more serious violent offence, other than murder, committed after this warning and if a Judge imposes a sentence of imprisonment, then you will serve that sentence without parole or early release. If you are convicted of murder committed after this warning, then you must
be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole unless it would be manifestly

R v SAMSON [2017] NZHC 1632 [14 July 2017]

unjust to do so. In that event, the Judge must sentence you to a minimum term of imprisonment. I turn now to your formal sentencing.

Sentencing

[4] Zariah Samson, you are for sentence this morning for the manslaughter of Corey Protos. You pleaded guilty to that charge after I provided a sentence indication earlier this week.

Background

[5] It is first important that I record the basis upon which I proceed to sentence you for the manslaughter of Mr Protos.

[6] At the time of his death, you had been in a relationship with Mr Protos for some seven weeks. He would stay at your address in Earnslaw Crescent, where he kept a number of his personal possessions.

[7] On 26 April, you were staying at a female associate’s address in Conference Street. In the afternoon of that day, Mr Protos borrowed an associate’s vehicle. He said he was going to pick up some drugs, pay a bill, and collect his personal property that he had stored at your address. He went to Conference Street, arriving there at around 2.45 pm. Shortly before, or while at the address, he consumed opiate-based drugs as well as methamphetamine. You have also admitted to the pre-sentence report writer as being under the influence of methamphetamine and cannabis at this time.

[8] While in the kitchen of the address you became agitated with Mr Protos and accused him of spreading rumours about you before beginning to assault him. This occurred within half an hour of him having arrived at the address. He was observed by one of the females at the address with blood on his hands and tee-shirt, and looking shocked and sick.

[9] Mr Protos was made to remove his clothing…

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 [2017] NZHC 1632
Case: [2017] NZHC 1632
Decision Date: 14 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Zariah Samson was convicted of the manslaughter of Corey Protos, and sentenced to six years and three months imprisonment, with a minimum term of imprisonment of three years and three months. The court heard that Samson and Protos had been in a relationship for seven weeks when the assault occurred. On the day of the assault, Samson was under the influence of drugs and accused Protos of spreading rumours about her. The assault lasted approximately four hours, during which Protos was held prisoner, beaten, and covered with a blanket. After the assault, Samson drove Protos to her address, where she strangled him with a computer cable, causing his death. The court found that there were aggravating factors, including the length and location of the assault, the use of the ligature, and the devastation caused to Protos’ family. However, the court also found mitigating factors, including Samson's difficult personal background, age, circumstances at the time of the offending, and remorse. The court also took into account Samson's guilty plea, which resulted in a 25 per cent credit to her sentence. The court found that a minimum term of imprisonment was appropriate to hold Samson accountable for the harm she had done and to denounce her conduct.

The final orders of the court were that Samson be sentenced to a term of six years and three months imprisonment, with a minimum term of imprisonment of three years and three months. The court also issued a three strikes warning to Samson, informing her of the consequences of another serious violence conviction.

Orders