R v Sloane - [2013] NZHC 53

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI 2012-063-4539 [2013] NZHC 53

THE QUEEN

v

GWENDA LEIGH SLOANE

Hearing: 4 February 2013

Counsel: A F Pilditch for Crown
H S Edward for Prisoner

Sentence: 4 February 2013

SENTENCE OF KEANE J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Rotorua
H S Edward, Rotorua

R V GWENDA LEIGH SLOANE HC ROT CRI 2012-063-4539 [4 February 2013]

[1] Gwenda Sloane, you appear for sentence, as a result of your plea, for the murder of Michelle Hoffman-Tamm on Wednesday 7 November 2012 here in Rotorua. In the course of that Wednesday night you subjected Ms Hoffman-Tamm to a sustained and unusually ferocious assault during which she died. You also mutilated her.

[2] The Crown contends, and you yourself accept, that you must be sentenced to life imprisonment, and to a minimum term of imprisonment of at least 17 years, unless such a minimum term is manifestly unjust. In that latter respect you rely principally on your guilty plea.

[3] I agree that you are to be sentenced on that basis. I must now say why I consider that to be so. But before I do so, I must first acknowledge the incalculable loss suffered by Ms Hoffman-Tamm's partner and family.

[4] Ms Hoffman-Tamm's partner of 15 years, her two children, her two brothers and her sister, have all completed victim impact statements and her son has read out his statement this afternoon. Each says how much they loved her and how devastated they are by the fact of her death and by the way in which she came to die. That loss, they say, was compounded considerably by the anxiety they felt in the weeks following her death when her fate was unknown, before you admitted your offence.

[5] You, yourself, in your two letters, one to the Court and one to me, and in your pre-sentence report, regret the enormity of your offence and its devastating effect on Ms Hoffman-Tamm's partner and family. You struggle still, you say, to understand why you offended as you did. You were affected by alcohol, you say, and only remember what you did, and why, very generally. You have never offended violently before.

[6] In now sentencing you for your offence, I rely as I must on the statement of facts prepared by the police with which you agree, which relies in part on your admissions as to what happened and in part as to the state of your flat and, more especially, that of Ms Hoffman-Tamm's body when examined forensically.

[7] Shortly after 8pm on Wednesday 7 November 2012, according to the statement agreed, you sent to Ms Hoffman-Tamm, with whom you had an occasional sexual relationship, a text message inviting her to your flat, which is attached to your parents' house. Your parents were overseas at the time. She arrived shortly after and, together, you went to a local liquor store and bought three dozen stubbies of beer. You, certainly, became very intoxicated.

[8] You…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Sloane and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NZHC 53
Decision Date: 4 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gwenda Leigh Sloane was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand in Rotorua for the murder of Michelle Hoffman-Tamm. The court heard that Sloane had subjected Hoffman-Tamm to a sustained and violent assault, resulting in her death, and had also mutilated her body. The Crown argued that Sloane should be sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum term of at least 17 years. Sloane agreed to this sentence, relying principally on her guilty plea. The court considered the impact of the murder on Hoffman-Tamm's family, who had suffered a significant loss. Sloane expressed remorse for her actions, attributing her violent behaviour to alcohol consumption. The court found that the murder involved a high degree of brutality, depravity, and callousness, and that a minimum term of at least 17 years was warranted. However, the court granted a discount for Sloane's early guilty plea, resulting in a minimum term of 14 years. Sloane was sentenced to life imprisonment, subject to a minimum term of 14 years.
The final orders of the court were that Gwenda Leigh Sloane be sentenced to imprisonment for life, subject to a minimum term of imprisonment of 14 years. Sloane was also warned of the consequences of any further serious violent offence or murder.

Orders