R v Simeon - [2021] NZHC 1371

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI 2019-004-004597

[2021] NZHC 1371

THE QUEEN

v

RIKKI-LEE TE MAURIORA SIMEON

Hearing: 10 June 2021

Appearances:

S O’Connor for the Crown

P L Borich QC for the Defendant

Sentencing:

10 June 2021

SENTENCING NOTES OF CAMPBELL J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Paul Borich QC, Auckland Meredith Connell, Auckland

R v SIMEON [2021] NZHC 1371 [10 June 2021]

Introduction

[1] Ms Simeon, a jury found you guilty of the murder of your partner Brendon Hamilton. My job today, on behalf of the community, is to impose a sentence on you for that murder, in accordance with law.

[2] The sentence I impose is not meant to make up for what you did. Ms Simeon, it never could.

[3] I acknowledge Brendon’s family in Court today, and I acknowledge that many of you were here through Ms Simeon’s trial as well in February. I have heard and had regard to what you have said. I saw your statements before today’s hearing. You have lost a beloved son, brother and uncle, someone who lit up the room, who made people laugh and smile even when they were down.

[4] You have also had to speak on behalf of Brendon’s and Ms Simeon’s daughter. Brendon was murdered on her first birthday. She will never know her loving father in the way that she should have been able to. I can say that at least she seems to me to be in good hands with you all. You all have my deepest sympathy, and none of you should feel that you failed Brendon in any way.

[5] I also want to acknowledge what a traumatic experience today has been and will be for you. You have had to relive those awful moments when you heard that Brendon had died. You are also going to hear me talk about the circumstances of Brendon’s death and about Ms Simeon’s circumstances. The law requires me to do that, and in particular to draw comparisons between what happened to Brendon with other cases of murder that have come before this Court.

[6] When I do that, nothing that I say in any way diminishes the loss that you have suffered, and that his daughter has suffered. Nor does it provide any excuse for what Ms Simeon has done. The jury’s job a few months ago was to decide whether, in part, there was any excuse for what Ms Simeon had done, and they found that there was none. So my job today is not to decide whether Ms Simeon is to be excused for her actions. It is simply to decide the appropriate sentence.

[7] Ms Simeon, Brendon’s family’s profound sense of loss, their grief, and their anger, will be obvious to you. The value of Brendon’s life – to his family, his friends, and to the wider community – was incalculable. No sentence that I can impose can make up for his…

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 Simeon

Details

AGLC: R v Simeon [2021] NZHC 1371
Case: [2021] NZHC 1371
Decision Date: 10 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Rikki-Lee Te Mauriora Simeon was convicted of the murder of her partner, Brendon Hamilton. The matter came before Campbell J in the High Court of New Zealand for sentencing. The primary legal issue before the court was whether a life sentence would be manifestly unjust in this case, given the exceptional circumstances of the offence and the offender.

The court considered the circumstances of the offence, including that there was no premeditation, and the stabbing was driven by recklessness rather than an intent to kill. The court also took into account Simeon's personal circumstances, which included a deeply flawed, violent, and traumatic upbringing, early exposure to drug abuse and family violence, and a diagnosis of schizophrenia at the time of the offence. The court found that while Simeon's mental illness was not the direct cause of the offence, it was a contributing factor.

Based on the combination of these factors, the court concluded that a life sentence would be manifestly unjust. Instead, the court imposed a sentence of 14 years' imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of seven years. This sentence aims to provide denunciation, deterrence, and community protection while addressing Simeon's rehabilitation needs.

In summary, the court found that exceptional circumstances warranted a deviation from the mandatory life sentence for murder, taking into account the offender's traumatic upbringing, mental illness, and the impulsive nature of the offence. The court imposed a 14-year sentence with a seven-year minimum non-parole period to appropriately balance the needs of the community and the offender.

Orders