R v Smith - [2024] NZHC 1289

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2021-009-3156

[2024] NZHC 1289

THE KING

v

MOTU SMITH

Hearing: 22 May 2024

Appearances:

C J Boshier for Crown

K J Beaton KC for Defendant

Judgment:

22 May 2024

SENTENCING NOTES OF EATON J

This judgment was delivered by me on …….. at ……… pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

R v SMITH [2024] NZHC 1289 [22 May 2024]

Introduction

[1] Motu Smith you appear for sentence, having pleaded guilty to charges of impeding breathing;1 aggravated robbery,2 robbery,3 two charges of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle,4 providing false details to the police,5 and to a charge of murdering Daniel Hawkins, a charge for which you were found guilty at trial.

[2] The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment. Ms Beaton KC on your behalf, acknowledges that I must sentence you to life imprisonment today and that will be the sentence I shortly impose. What I must determine is how much of that life sentence you will have to serve before being eligible to apply for release on parole. That is the minimum period of imprisonment. I will refer to it as the MPI.

[3] I acknowledge the presence in Court today of many of the family of the deceased, Daniel Hawkins. And I also acknowledge the presence, Mr Smith, of your mother and brother.

Facts

[4] Sentencing is a public function, and it is important the factual basis on which you are to be sentenced is made clear. The details of your admitted offending are summarised in a prosecution summary of facts. I heard evidence to support those allegations during the course of your murder trial. As regards the murder of Mr Hawkins, I have formed a view of the facts based on the evidence that was offered at your trial.

[5] I will deal firstly with the facts that relate to the offending to which you entered guilty pleas on arraignment at the very outset of the trial.

[6] On Thursday, 22 and Friday, 23 April 2021, you were working as a labourer in the Lincoln area in Christchurch. No issue was raised as to your behaviour by your

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 189A(b): maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 235(c): maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 234: maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
4      Section 226(1): maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
5      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 52A and 114: maximum penalty $10,000 fine.

employer during those two days, other than a comment you made about a conspiracy when you spoke with one of the supervisors on the Thursday, a comment that your supervisor thought was odd.

[7] At about 4:15 pm on the Friday, you entered the portacom office where a supervisor, who I will refer to as J6, was seated and working at a desk. You asked J if he was going to take you home.…

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 Smith

Details

AGLC: R v Smith [2024] NZHC 1289
Case: [2024] NZHC 1289
Decision Date: 22 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Motu Smith appeared for sentencing after pleading guilty to multiple charges, including murder, impeding breathing, aggravated robbery, robbery, and unlawfully taking a motor vehicle. The court had to determine the minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) for Smith's life sentence for murder and sentence him for the other charges. The court considered Smith's personal history of trauma, mental illness, and criminal behaviour, as well as his remorse and rehabilitation efforts. The court found that a 17-year MPI for the murder charge would be manifestly unjust due to Smith's personal circumstances and mental health, and imposed a 14-year 6-month MPI instead. For the other charges, the court imposed concurrent sentences, taking into account Smith's criminal history, belated guilty pleas, and personal history. The final sentence for Smith was life imprisonment for murder, with a 14-year 6-month MPI, and concurrent sentences for the other charges, to be served concurrently.

Orders