Legal Research
Cases
R v Simeon

R v Simeon

Case [2020] NZHC 1421 23 June 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI 2019-044-001551

[2020] NZHC 1421

THE QUEEN

v

CHRISTOPHER KANE TE KAWA SIMEON

Hearing: 23 June 2020

Appearances:

M R Harborow & E L Woolley for the Crown J-A Kincade QC & A Shendi for the Defendant

Judgment:

23 June 2020

Reissued:

09 October 2020

SENTENCING NOTES OF VAN BOHEMEN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 05 August 2020 and
re-delivered by me on 2 September 2020 in accordance with Criminal Procedure Rules 2012, r 1.6.

Solicitors/Counsel:
Meredith Connell, Auckland J-A Kincade QC, Auckland
Blackstone Chambers, Auckland

R v SIMEON [2020] NZHC 1421 [23 June 2020]

Introduction

[1] Christopher Kane Te Kawa Simeon, you appear for sentence for the murder of Faletoi Matue late in the evening of 3 May 2019. On 19 May 2020, you pleaded guilty, and Justice Downs entered your conviction and read a first strike warning.

[2] I begin by acknowledging the presence of Toi Matue’s family, both in court and by audio visual link. I also acknowledge the presence of members of your family, Mr Simeon. It is difficult time for both families and I pay tribute to the families for the restraint and compassion you have all displayed. All of these people have been affected by your actions, Mr Simeon.

[3] The sentence for murder is life imprisonment.1 I must impose that sentence unless it would be manifestly unjust to do so.2 I am satisfied that your circumstances and the circumstances in which you killed Mr Matue do not make a life sentence manifestly unjust in your case. Neither Mr Harborow, counsel for the Crown, nor your counsel, Ms Kincade, has suggested otherwise.

[4] The only issue for today is the length of time that you will have to spend in prison before you are eligible to apply for parole.

[5] Before I consider that question, I must set out the circumstances that brought you to Court today. I regret any distress this may cause to Mr Matue’s family, or indeed, to Mr Simeon’s family.

Facts

[6] On the night of 3 May 2019, you and Mr Matue were drinking together at an apartment in Central Auckland. Both of you became intoxicated. Later in the evening, around 10:45pm, Mr Matue, you and three others got into a car. Mr Matue, you and a woman were in the rear seats. Two other males were in the driver’s seat and front passenger seat.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 172.
2 Sentencing Act 2002, s 102(1).

[7] During a car stop, a scuffle broke out between you and Mr Matue. One of the men in the front seats described hearing a bang and Mr Matue saying to you, “Why did you hit me?” He then saw Mr Matue punch you 15 to 20 times in the face, and elbow you in the face, causing you to bleed from your nose and mouth.

[8] About half an hour…

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 [2020] NZHC 1421
Case: [2020] NZHC 1421
Decision Date: 23 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Christopher Kane Te Kawa Simeon was sentenced for the murder of Faletoi Matue, which occurred on 3 May 2019. The central legal issue was the determination of the minimum term of imprisonment for Simeon, given the mandatory life sentence for murder under the Crimes Act 1961. The court had to consider whether the murder involved a high level of brutality, cruelty, depravity, or callousness, which would trigger a minimum term of imprisonment of at least 17 years under the Sentencing Act 2002. The Crown argued that the murder was of high brutality, citing the intensity of the attack, the use of knives, and Simeon's stomping on Matue's head. In contrast, the defence argued that the murder did not reach the threshold of high brutality and that a minimum term of 17 years would be manifestly unjust. The court found that while the murder was brutal, it did not reach the level required to engage section 104 of the Sentencing Act. The court set a starting point of 13 years for the minimum term, adjusted for Simeon's guilty plea and personal mitigating factors, resulting in a final minimum term of 10 years and 9 months. Simeon was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 10 years and 9 months.

Orders