R v Skeen - [2016] NZHC 1904

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-204-344 [2016] NZHC 1904

THE QUEEN

v

VINCENT ANGENE SKEEN

Hearing: 16 August 2016

Appearances:

B H Dickey and H D Steele for Crown
L O Smith for Defendant

Sentence:

16 August 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF PETERS J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Crown Solicitor, Auckland

Counsel: L O Smith, Auckland
M M Wilkinson-Smith, Auckland

R v SKEEN [2016] NZHC 1904 [16 August 2016]

[1] Mr Skeen. Today I am sentencing you for the manslaughter of Luke Tipene on 31 October 2014.1

[2] The maximum penalty for manslaughter is life imprisonment.2

[3] I shall start by setting out the events that led to Luke’s death.

[4] Then I shall turn to the first step in the sentencing process which is to set a

“starting point” that reflects the wrongdoing in your offending.

[5] The second step is to take account of matters that relate to you personally and which may require me to increase or reduce the period of imprisonment established by the starting point.

[6] What this means Mr Skeen is that you will not know your sentence until I get to the very end.

[7] But before I start, I wish to assure the Tipene and Skeen families that the lawyers on each side, as well as Corrections, have done the work required of them to prepare for today. Corrections have given me a report, and the Crown and Mrs Smith have given me careful written submissions. I have read every case that they have referred me to, and lots more besides.

[8] I say this because you should not think – and I know you wouldn’t anyway – that Judges just pluck sentences out of thin air. We apply the law, and we take everything into account to get to a result that does justice to the community, to the victims and to the defendant.

[9] Quite aside from the reports and submissions, I have had had the benefit of a written statement from Luke’s mother and a teacher at his kura.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 171; you were convicted of manslaughter on 18 July 2016 following a jury trial on a charge of murder.
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 177.

[10] It was obvious to everyone at the trial that Luke was much loved and cherished by his family.

[11] Luke was robbed of his life at 17. He was Ms Wilson’s only son and she describes his loss as “intense and paralysing”. Ms Wilson raised Luke and his four sisters single handedly and Luke’s death is devastating. In fact, one of those four sisters was Luke’s twin and she must feel his loss very keenly also.

[12] Neither Ms Wilson, nor Luke’s sisters, will ever get over his death and nor will his wider whānau.

[13] Luke was also a good friend to many, and an excellent sportsman with an exciting future ahead of him. Exciting for him and exciting for his family. He was also achieving…

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 Skeen

Details

AGLC: R v Skeen [2016] NZHC 1904
Case: [2016] NZHC 1904
Decision Date: 16 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent Angeane Skeen was sentenced for the manslaughter of Luke Tipene, which occurred on 31 October 2014. The Crown argued for a starting point in the upper half of Band Two of Taueki, suggesting eight years’ imprisonment, based on the extreme violence and premeditation in Skeen's actions. In contrast, the defence argued for a starting point of seven years, citing comparable cases where the weapon used was a knife. The court determined that seven and a half years was appropriate as a starting point. Considering Skeen's age at the time of the offence and his early offer to plead guilty, the court reduced the sentence by one year and 20 per cent respectively. Consequently, Skeen was sentenced to five years and two months' imprisonment.

The court outlined the purposes of sentencing, emphasizing accountability, community intolerance of such offending, and deterrence. The starting point was set to ensure consistency with other cases of similar offending. The court balanced the severity of the offence with Skeen's age and his early plea offer, resulting in a final sentence of five years and two months' imprisonment. This decision reflects the need to hold Skeen accountable while considering his personal circumstances and the potential long-term impact of a lengthy sentence on a young offender.

Orders