R v Shaheem

[2019] NZHC 1200

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI 2017-092-005761

[2019] NZHC 1200

THE QUEEN

v

MOHAMMED SHAIYAZ SHAHEEM AND

TRINITY MARKS

Hearing:

29 May 2019

Appearances:

M Williams & S Norrie for Crown

P Tomlinson & T Beach for Mr Shaheem S K Green for Mr Marks

Judgment:

29 May 2019

SENTENCING NOTES OF VAN BOHEMEN J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitors, Manukau Counsel:

P Tomlinson, Barrister, Auckland T Beach, Barrister, Auckland

S K Green, Barrister, Auckland

R v SHAHEEM & MARKS [2019] NZHC 1200 [29 May 2019]

Introduction

[1]                 Mohammed Shaheem and Trinity Marks, you appear for sentence having been found guilty, following trial by jury, of the murder of Jima Zaya. I gave you both first strike warnings when entering your convictions.

[2]                 The Crown case was that you, together with Mr Wilson Josephs, were either principal offenders or were parties to the offending, intentionally assisting or encouraging the other or Mr Josephs, to cause the death of Mr Zaya.

[3]                 Mr Josephs has also been charged with Mr Zaya’s murder but did not stand trial with you because he awaits trial in Australia for separate offending.

Circumstances of the offending

[4]                 In the early hours of 20 May 2017, Mr Marks and Mr Josephs, together with their cousin, Te Aroha Neho picked up Mr Zaya. They drove to various houses in South Auckland for the purpose of obtaining money or drugs that Mr Zaya apparently owed to Mr Josephs or Mr Marks. They were unsuccessful in obtaining whatever they were after, and Mr Marks became angry with Mr Zaya.

[5]                 They then drove to the boarding house where Mr Zaya lived. As they arrived, Mr Josephs hit Mr Zaya heavily in the face. He followed that up with further blows to Mr Zaya’s head. Mr Josephs again hit Mr Zaya after they had exited the car.      Mr Josephs and Mr Marks then went with Mr Zaya into the boarding house while  Ms Neho remained in the car.

[6]                 Mr Zaya, followed by Mr Josephs and Mr Marks, went to  Room  5 where  Mr Shaheem, together with his then girlfriend, Kaytlyn Knight, were present. Junior Richmond, another boarding house resident tenant, was also in the room. Angry words and curses were exchanged between Mr Zaya and Mr Shaheem after Mr Zaya demanded drugs from Mr Shaheem in what Mr Shaheem and Ms Knight perceived to be a “stand-over”.

[7]                 An altercation and then a fight broke out. There was a conflict in the evidence at trial as to where those happened, who started the fight and who were the main actors. But there is no dispute that:

(a)First, Mr Shaheem, Mr Marks and Mr Josephs were present throughout the fight, which involved multiple kicks and punches to Mr Zaya’s head, torso and legs;

(b)Second, Mr Zaya received traumatic brain injuries that caused his death as well as a cracked skull, other severe injuries to his head and to his body, including injury to his pancreas.

[8]                 There was no suggestion at trial that anyone other than Mr Shaheem, Mr Marks and Mr Josephs, as well as Mr Zaya, were involved in the fight. It follows that at least one of Mr Shaheem, Mr Marks and Mr Josephs inflicted the injuries that caused    Mr Zaya’s death.

[9]                 Although Ms Knight said at trial that Mr Josephs threw the first punch in the boarding house and inflicted the majority of the blows that caused Mr Zaya’s death, her credibility was seriously compromised by the changes in her various accounts of the incident to police and by her statements in intercepted calls with Mr Shaheem that she had sought to shift the blame for Mr Zaya’s death away from Mr Shaheem and on to Mr Josephs and Mr Marks.

[10]              The weight of evidence was that Mr Marks struck the first blow in the boarding house, causing Mr Zaya to fall to the ground. Mr Zaya sat up, propped against a wall, and continued swearing at Mr Shaheem. Mr Shaheem then attacked Mr Zaya, kicking his head as if it were a football, stomping on his head, and kicking and stomping on Mr Zaya’s body. Mr Marks was present throughout the assault, yelling “Fuck you” at Mr Zaya as the assault continued. Mr Marks also discouraged Anthony Wijohn, another boarding house resident who had come to find out what was going on, from getting involved, saying words to the effect “Go back to your room, Cuz, it’s all been sorted”.

[11]              After the attack, Mr Josephs went outside to the car and returned with Ms Neho to collect Mr Marks who had remained at the scene  of the  attack.  As  Mr Marks, Mr Josephs and Ms Neho departed the boarding house, Mr Josephs gave Mr Zaya a further kick. At this stage Mr Zaya was lying on the ground breathing heavily and emitting sounds that sounded like snoring. The medical evidence was that these sounds indicated that Mr Zaya had suffered a non-survivable brain injury, and that his body was shutting down.

[12]              After Mr Josephs, Mr Marks and Ms Neho had left, Mr Shaheem, with Mr Richmond’s assistance, dragged Mr Zaya to his bedroom and placed him on his bed after Mr Shaheem had kicked open the door to the locked bedroom.

[13]              Despite the fact that Mr Shaheem, Ms Knight, Mr Richmond and Mr Wijohn, and at least three other boarding house residents, Phillip King, Fred Thompson and Gregory Stout, were aware that Mr Zaya had been beaten up, no-one checked on Mr Zaya until the evening of 20 May 2017. It was then that the boarding house manager learned of the fight and went into Mr Zaya’s bedroom and found Mr Zaya dead on his bed.

Victim Impact Statement

[14]              We have heard the victim impact statement read by Crown counsel on behalf of James Shemaon Zaya, the victim’s brother. The statement describes the overwhelming loss felt by Mr Zaya’s family, a family that came to New Zealand as refugees from the war in Iraq, is feeling as a result of his passing. Mr Zaya’s death has had a profound impact on Mr Zaya’s mother, his two brothers and his wider family, all of whom are still struggling to cope with this tragedy. Understandably, Mr Zaya’s brothers have felt unable to disclose the circumstances of Mr Zaya’s death to their mother or their children.

Personal circumstances of Mr Shaheem and Mr Marks

Mohammed Shaheem

[15]              Mr Shaheem, you are a 40-year-old male who emigrated from Fiji to New Zealand with your parents and your three siblings, at the age of 19. You appear to have had a good upbringing in Fiji. Throughout your childhood, you performed very well academically, you engaged in sports, and had a wide circle of friends. Following your move to New Zealand, you became a fully qualified mechanic, holding various positions as a vehicle mechanic, one of which lasted for a period of five years. Prior to the offending for which you are to be sentenced you were unemployed.

[16]              You have a limited network of supportive friends and family. Over the years you have maintained your relationship with your mother, who is identified as your main support person, but do not have much contact with your father. You currently have two teenage children from two previous relationships, with whom you remain in regular contact.  At the  time of  your offending  you  were in a relationship with   Ms Knight but that has since ended.

[17]              Mr Shaheem, your past is marked with both violence and the abuse of drugs. Your criminal history is extensive, containing 57 convictions including driving, property, violence and compliance-related offences. A number of your violent offences have involved family members or romantic partners as victims. You do not consider yourself a violent person, but your history is to the contrary. People close to you have borne the consequences of your violence. On this occasion, the violence to your fellow boarding house resident was lethal.

[18]              You have used both drugs and alcohol from an early age. You report using cannabis from the age of 15 and say that by the age of 20 you were smoking every day. You also report the regular use of Methamphetamine from about the age of 25, at times spending up to $300 per week on this habit. Your last use of methamphetamine was on the day of the offending for which you report using half a gram.

[19]              A psychiatric report was prepared by Dr Jeremy Skipworth in April 2019, pursuant to s 38 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. The report documents your mental health history dating back to 2014. Between 2014 and 2019 you have been admitted to a psychiatric unit on three occasions presenting with paranoia, aggressive behaviour, delusions and hallucinations. On each occasion your methamphetamine use was documented. Your diagnoses have included methamphetamine-induced psychotic disorder and more  recently,  schizophrenia.  Dr Skipworth stated that the relationship between methamphetamine use and schizophrenia is complex but that, irrespective of the diagnosis, Mr Shaheem’s illness appears to have been largely in remission at the time of the murder, despite Mr Shaheem’s reported use of methamphetamine in the preceding days.

[20]              The psychiatric report notes that you were symptom free at the time of the murder, and currently remain so. Dr Skipworth believes that your mental illness can be adequately managed in a prison setting and that there is no need for an order under s 34 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. Dr Skipworth recommends that you engage in addiction and violence related rehabilitation programmes.

[21]              The pre-sentence report recommends imprisonment. The report notes that you have a lack of insight into the current offending and have minimised your use of violence in relation to this offending and to earlier violent offending. The report says you are at a medium risk of re-offending as long as your lack of insight and your offending needs remain unaddressed. However, the report states that you feel badly about the victim’s death, that you think regularly about the victim and his family, and that you acknowledge that you could have done more by calling an ambulance.

Trinity Marks

[22]              Mr Marks, you are a 34-year old male who grew up in Auckland with a large blended family. You appear to have had a good but difficult childhood but you struggled at high school, leaving at the age of 16 without any qualifications. Since leaving school you have had numerous short-term labour related jobs which have often required you to travel outside of Auckland for work.

[23]              You seem to have a large and supportive family network. You have an ongoing relationship with your mother and you have been with your current partner for many years. You and your partner have recently had your sixth child together. You are described by your family as an active, responsible and attentive father. However, it appears that before the current offending you began to interact with a new peer group that engaged in substance abuse, and this engagement had resulted in you having greater access to drugs and alcohol. You also appear to have been under the influence of your cousin, Mr Josephs.

[24]              Your criminal history is not extensive. You have 11 convictions for mostly low-level offending, predominately driving and compliance offences. You do not exhibit a history of violence or violent offending. In this respect the current offending is out of character for you.

[25]              A psychiatric report dated 11 March 2018 was prepared by Dr Anja Isaacson for the purposes of assessing your suitability for electronically monitored bail. This report indicated that you exhibited a pattern of harmful use and dependency on alcohol, and a moderate level of problematic drug use that warranted further assessment and treatment. Dr Isaacson noted that you possess a functional cognitive impairment that ought to be assessed further.

[26]              In a further assessment by Dr Jon Nuth dated 29 May 2018 you were described as possessing relatively low intellectual ability but not of a magnitude to meet any disability or diagnostic criteria. Despite this, the report noted that you have trouble with reading, writing and concentrating, and are prone to misunderstanding words and concepts. Throughout your trial you were accompanied by a communications assistant who was able to support you and ensure your understanding.

[27]              I have not received a pre-sentence report for you, Mr Marks because you refused to take part in the report process, even after I had adjourned the sentencing that had been set down for earlier this month to ensure that you had had that opportunity. You have advised the Department of Corrections that you intend to appeal your conviction and you have dismissed counsel who represented you at trial.

Submissions for the crown

[28]              Mr Williams for the Crown submits that the offending engaged a number of the aggravating factors set out in s 9 of the Sentencing Act 2002, including extreme violence to the head, extensive harm to both the victim and his family, a vulnerable victim, premeditation, a failure to seek assistance and the presence of multiple attackers. No mitigating factors of the offending were identified.

[29]                The Crown does not say that the offending triggers any of the criteria in s 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002 that would make a minimum term of 17 years’ imprisonment mandatory. It does say, however, that there are no factors present that would override the presumption in favour of life imprisonment in s 102 of the Sentencing Act that would render a sentence of life imprisonment manifestly unjust.

[30]              To assist the Court in determining the minimum  period  of  imprisonment, Mr Williams has referred to a number of authorities where minimum periods of between 10 and 17 years were imposed. Mr Williams submits that the current offending is less serious than that which occurred in R v Lavemai1 where the Court imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years and, with reference to a number of other decisions where minimum periods of imprisonment of between 10 and 15 years were imposed, Mr Williams submits that a minimum period of imprisonment of 12 years is appropriate.2

[31]              The Crown says that both Mr Shaheem and Mr Marks are equally culpable, justifying a minimum term of 12 years for both offenders.

[32]              In Mr Shaheem’s case, the Crown says a modest uplift to the 12 years is warranted to reflect Mr Shaheem’s previous convictions for violence. The Crown does not support any deductions for remorse or mental health, which, it says, was not causally related to the offending and can be adequately managed in prison.

1      R v Lavemai [2014] NZHC 797.

2      R v Houma [2008] NZCA 512; R v Churchis [2014] NZHC 2257; R v Sullivan, Kupa-Caudwell, Walker CRI 2009-485-000086, HC Wellington, 10 February 2010; R v Ranapia, CRI 2008-088- 004443, HC Whangarei, 23 October 2009; R v Rangiwhaiao [2012] NZHC 1751; R v Solomon & George [2017] NZHC 3057

[33]              In Mr Marks’ case, the Crown proposes a minimum term of 12 years imprisonment but does not advocate for any uplifts. The Crown also says there should be no discount for remorse or reduced cognitive functioning which, it submits, cannot be said to have either caused the offending or to moderate Mr Marks’ culpability for the offending.

Submissions for the defendants

[34]                Mr Tomlinson for Mr Shaheem submits that in considering an appropriate minimum period of imprisonment the relevant aggravating factors include extreme violence to the head, harm to the victim and his family, vulnerability of the victim and the presence of multiple attackers. Mr Tomlinson takes issue with the Crown position that the attack was premeditated, stating that Mr Shaheem’s actions were better described as a violent over reaction to the demands of Mr Zaya. He also submits although Mr Shaheem failed to seek assistance for Mr Zaya, this was not a callous act because Mr Shaheem did not know that Mr Zaya was dying. Mr Tomlinson identifies provocation as a mitigating factor of the offending and submits that without the initial provocation from Mr Zaya the offending would not have occurred.

[35]              Mr Tomlinson accepts a minimum period of imprisonment of 12 years is appropriate but submits that if the Court were to take into account Mr Shaheem’s mental health, a minimum period of 11 years would be more appropriate. He acknowledges that Mr Shaheem’s mental health was not causative of the offending but submits it may still be relevant in assessing the minimum term because Mr Shaheem’s mental illness would render his term in prison a more severe penalty and warrants a minimal deduction to reflect this.

[36]              Ms Green for Mr Marks submits that s 103 of the Sentencing Act requires the court to assess the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment with reference to the statutory minimum of 10 years. She says a minimum period of 12 years is too high and that a term of 10 years would be sufficient to denounce the offending behaviour and protect the community.

[37]              Ms Green contests the Crown’s submission that Mr Marks and Mr Shaheem are equally culpable for the murder of Mr Zaya. Ms Green says Mr Marks’ culpability

is reduced in regard to both the physical act and the requisite intention. She says it is apparent from the evidence that Mr Marks was not the principal offender and says he should be assessed as a party to the offending, and that his participation was limited to his remaining present, to shouting during the assault and also to the initial punch, if I find that Mr Marks inflicted that punch. Ms Green also submits that Mr Mark’s lower cognitive ability reduces his culpability as it influenced the degree to which he possessed the requisite intent. For these reasons, Ms Green says a minimum period of 10 years imprisonment is appropriate.

Approach to sentencing

[38]              The Sentencing Act sets out the framework for sentencing an individual convicted of murder.

[39]              Section 102 provides that an offender who is convicted of murder must be sentenced to imprisonment for life unless, given the circumstances of the offence and the offender, a sentence of life imprisonment would be manifestly unjust.

[40]              Section 103 provides that where a sentence of life imprisonment would not be manifestly unjust, the court must impose a minimum term of imprisonment of no less than 10 years. Under s 103, the minimum period of imprisonment must be the minimum necessary to:

(a)Hold the offender accountable for the harm done to the victim and the community by the offending;

(b)Denounce the conduct in which the offender was involved;

(c)Deter the offender or other persons from committing the same or a similar offence; and

(d)Protect the community from the offender.

[41]              Section 104 provides that the court must impose a minimum period of imprisonment of at least 17 years in certain circumstances, including where the murder was committed with a high level of brutality, cruelty, depravity, or callousness.

[42]              I agree with the Crown and defence counsel that s 104 is not engaged in this case. While the assault on Mr Zaya was brutal, I do not consider it can be said to have been deliberately  cruel,  depraved  or  callous.  The  fact  that  Mr  Shaheem  and  Mr Richmond put Mr Zaya into his bedroom after the attack and that no-one checked on Mr Zaya for over 12 hours suggests no-one present that night had understood the severity of the injuries inflicted on Mr Zaya.

Culpability

[43]              In assessing culpability, I consider how the events that took place on the night of 20 May 2017 relate to the Crown’s case against Mr Shaheem and Mr Marks.

[44]              I agree with aspects of the Crown’s account. I accept that Mr Marks struck the first blow in the boarding house causing Mr Zaya to fall to the ground. I agree that that blow rendered Mr Zaya vulnerable to Mr Shaheem who then attacked Mr Zaya and, in the course of that attack, delivered the fatal blows that killed Mr Zaya. I also agree that Mr Marks encouraged Mr Shaheem by his presence, by yelling abuse at Mr Zaya and by discouraging Mr Wijohn from interfering in the attack.

[45]              I consider that in these respects, Mr Mark’s actions amounted to assisting or encouraging Mr Shaheem to cause bodily injury that caused Mr Zaya’s death. Those actions made Mr Marks a party to the murder of Mr Zaya under s 66(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 – the basis of the Crown’s case that Mr Marks was a party to Mr Zaya’s murder.

[46]              While there was evidence at trial  that  Mr  Marks  and  Mr  Josephs  knew Mr Shaheem, there was no evidence to suggest that they intended to meet up with  Mr Shaheem when they came to the boarding house that night or that Mr Shaheem knew of their presence until they and Mr Zaya appeared at the door of his bedroom. Nor was there evidence to suggest that Mr Marks knew or had reason to suspect that Mr Shaheem would attack Mr Zaya. For these reasons, I do not accept that Mr Marks’

actions before he and Mr Josephs came into the boarding house can be said to have assisted or encouraged Mr Shaheem in his attack on Mr Zaya.

[47]              Accordingly, I consider that Mr Mark’s involvement as a party to Mr Zaya’s murder is limited to his striking the first blow  that made Mr Zaya vulnerable to     Mr Shaheem, and to his encouragement of Mr Shaheem’s assault through his being present at the attack, his yelling abuse at Mr Zaya during the assault, and by his discouragement of intervention by Mr Wijohn.

Minimum periods of imprisonment

Mohammed Shaheem

[48]              Mr Shaheem, I agree with Crown counsel and Mr Tomlinson that a sentence of life imprisonment is appropriate for your offending. Accordingly, I am required to determine the minimum term necessary to satisfy the purposes in s 103. I must also consider your culpability and the seriousness of the offence as represented by the maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Your sentence should be consistent with other sentences for similar offending. However, the primary comparison is between your offending and the statutory minimum of 10 years.3

[49]              I consider first the aggravating factors of the offending and assess these in respect to the 10-year minimum. Those aggravating features include attacking the head, vulnerability of the victim, the degree and severity of the harm caused, the presence of multiple attackers, and a failure to seek assistance.

[50]              I accept that the attack was not premeditated. I accept Mr Tomlinson’s submission that you did not plan to assault Mr Zaya but responded, far too aggressively, to the situation that unfolded before you. I do not accept, however, that you were provoked by Mr Zaya, notwithstanding your initial perception that this was a stand over. You were clearly not intimidated by the presence of Mr Josephs and Mr Marks, let alone that of Mr Zaya who was much smaller than you.

3      R v Howse [2003] 3 NZLR 767 (CA) at [64].

[51]              I agree with Crown counsel that there were no mitigating features with regard to your offending. The pre-sentence report notes that you feel bad about the victim and the impact of Mr Zaya’s death on his family. That falls well short of genuine remorse. The efforts you made to cast all blame for Mr Zaya’s death on Mr Zaya himself as well as Mr Josephs and Mr Marks after the event also indicate a lack of acceptance and remorse.

[52]              I consider your culpability to be greater than the offenders in R v Solomon & George, to which Mr Williams referred.4 That case involved two attackers who punched the victim to the head and body when he refused to fight. The victim suffered a fatal brain injury. In that case, the Court set a starting point of 11 years as a minimum period of imprisonment before reducing that to 10 years to take account of mitigating factors.

[53]              In R v Rangiwhaiao and R v Ranapia,5 the Court also adopted starting points of 11 years for sustained attacks by single individuals on another. Those attacks took place over a longer time frame than your attack on Mr Zaya but the difference was probably due to the fact that Mr Zaya had been rendered deeply unconscious by the kicks you delivered to his head. On the other hand, in R v Churchis and R v Sullivan, Kupa-Caudwell and Walker, the Court set starting points of 12 years in cases of sustained assaults involving stomps and kicks to the head.6 That said, Churchis involved a particularly brutal attack that would have engaged s 104 but for the offender’s youth, and in R v Sullivan, Kupa-Caudwell and Walker the victim was able to escape from the initial assault but was pursued by a party of attackers, and then dragged to another location

[54]              Taking into account the aggravating features discussed above as well as these authorities, I consider a starting point of 11 years and six months as a minimum period of imprisonment to be appropriate in your case, Mr Shaheem.

4      R v Solomon & George [2017] NZHC 3057.

5      R v Rangiwhaiao [2012] NZHC 1751; R v Ranapia, CRI 2008-088-004443, HC Whangarei, 23 October 2009.

6      R v Churchis [2014] NZHC 2257; R v Sullivan, Kupa-Caudwell and Walker CRI 2009-485- 000086, HC Wellington, 10 February 2010.

[55]              As I have already noted, you have an extensive criminal history with 57 convictions, a number of which involved violence. I agree with the Crown that an uplift is warranted and for that reason, I add a further six months to your minimum period of imprisonment, bringing the total minimum period of imprisonment to 12 years.

[56]              Mr Tomlinson says a reduction in the minimum period is warranted because you are likely to find prison to be a more severe penalty in light of your mental illness, based on the approach taken in R v Mataki. In that case the minimum period of imprisonment was reduced because the offender had been diagnosed as having paranoid schizophrenia and a psychiatrist’s report  had  noted the challenges  that  Mr Mataki was experiencing in prison as a result of his schizophrenia.7

[57]              In your case, Mr Shaheem, the report from Dr Skipworth does not indicate that you are experiencing any challenges in prison relating to your mental health issues. It states that your illness can be appropriately managed in prison and that, so far, you appear to be coping well. Dr Skipworth notes that some individuals with serious mental illness struggle in prison to gain privileges or engage in rehabilitation programmes and says that it is difficult to predict how you will continue to respond. I take account of that cautionary observation but in the circumstances of your offending, I do not consider that it provides a sufficient basis for reducing the minimum period of imprisonment.

Mr Marks

[58]              Mr Marks, I have already said that I consider your offending to be less culpable than that of Mr Shaheem. While you were the first to strike Mr Zaya, there is no suggestion that you struck the blows that killed Mr Zaya. To the contrary, the evidence is that Mr Zaya sat up after that blow and continued to swear at Mr Shaheem. However, your blow made Mr Zaya vulnerable to Mr Shaheem’s attack and, even though you had no  fore-knowledge  of  Mr  Shaheem’s  attack,  you  encouraged  Mr Shaheem with your continued presence and your swearing at Mr Zaya. You also

7      R v Mataki [2016] NZHC 600.

discouraged Mr Wijohn from intervening and gave no assistance to Mr Zaya as he lay crumpled on the floor in a pool of blood.

[59]              For these reasons, I am satisfied that a sentence of life imprisonment in accordance with s103 of the Sentencing Act is appropriate.

[60]              Nonetheless, I do not consider your culpability to be of the same order as the offenders in Solomon & George, Rangiwhaiao or Ranapia. That itself suggests a minimum period of imprisonment of less than 11 years is appropriate. In addition, as the Court of Appeal observed in R v Cunnard, the Court’s assessment of relative culpability is central to identifying the appropriate starting point for a term of imprisonment, and that, while the culpability of the murderer or principal party is always high, the culpability or degree of involvement of secondary parties may differ greatly. 8

[61]              Since I have set the minimum period of imprisonment for Mr Shaheem at 12 years, I consider a minimum period of 10 years for Mr Marks to be appropriate to reflect the relative culpability of Mr Shaheem and Mr Marks.

[62]              Since 10 years is the minimum period I may set under s 103, there is no scope for further reduction based on Mr Marks’ cognitive impairment or family circumstances.

Result

[63]Mr Shaheem and Mr Marks, please stand.

[64]              Mr Shaheem, following your conviction for murder, I sentence you to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 12 years.

[65]              Mr Marks, following your conviction for murder, I sentence you to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years.

8      R v Cunnard [2014] NZCA 138 at [18].

[66]You may stand down.

G J van Bohemen J