R v Smith - [2013] NZHC 2782

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI 2012-091-3576 [2013] NZHC 2782

THE QUEEN

v

ERNEST SMITH

Hearing: 23 October 2013

Counsel: G J Burston for Crown
B Hunt and C J Stevenson for Defendant

Sentence: 23 October 2013

SENTENCE OF RONALD YOUNG J

[1] Mr Smith you have pleaded guilty to murder and I now have to sentence you. You murdered Ms Taufale with whom you had been in a relationship. You and she have a nine month old child. In 2012 the two of you separated. The arrangements were that you could only visit her and your son by prior arrangement with another family member present. When you and she separated she continued to live in the house in Sunrise Boulevard, Tawa. She asked you to return your key to the house but you did not do so.

[2] Shortly after mid-day on 14 November 2012 you left your work and went to your home in Karori. There you fashioned a make shift hood. You left your house with the hood which required some effort to make, you had gloves, and a blue
handled gib knife. You took a battery operated drill and some screws.

R v SMITH [2013] NZHC 2782 [23 October 2013]

[3] You drove to the Railway Station in Tawa and parked your car there. You then walked to the Sunrise Boulevard house. There was no one at home. You entered the house using your key. You then used a ceiling hatch in the hallway and climbed into the roof space. You tied strapping to a rafter so you could climb in and out of the ceiling space undetected. You then drilled two screws into the back of the ceiling hatch so you could use them to open the hatch from the inside of the roof cavity once you were concealed inside.

[4] You then stayed in the roof space waiting for Ms Taufale to return home. Later she did so with your child and with her 15 year old son from a previous relationship. Eventually the two boys and Ms Taufale went to bed and fell asleep.

[5] You then opened the ceiling hatch and lowered yourself to the hallway. You were wearing gloves, the hood and took the gib knife with you. You made your way to Ms Taufale’s bedroom. There, there was a violent struggle. You stabbed and cut Ms Taufale a number of times to her body and ultimately dragged the knife across her throat causing a deep and jaggered cut to her neck. Her jugular vein and carotid artery were severed and eventually she bled to death. During the struggle it seems your hood was removed and it was later found in the bedroom.

[6] You then went to a neighbouring spare bedroom and created a false point of entry to make it look as though someone had unlawfully entered the house and committed the murder. You left that window ajar and dabbed Ms Taufale’s blood around the…

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 [2013] NZHC 2782
Case: [2013] NZHC 2782
Decision Date: 23 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Smith, the defendant, Ernest Smith, stood before the High Court of New Zealand to be sentenced for the murder of his former partner, Ms Taufale. The court heard that Smith had meticulously planned the murder, including creating a makeshift hood, gloves, and a gib knife, and concealing himself in the roof space of the victim's house for hours. The brutal attack involved multiple stab wounds and slashing of the victim's throat, ultimately leading to her death. Smith attempted to stage the crime scene to make it appear as though an intruder had committed the murder. The court found that the calculated planning, unlawful entry, and brutality of the murder warranted a minimum sentence of imprisonment under section 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002.

The legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate sentence for Smith's premeditated and brutal murder of Ms Taufale. The court considered whether the minimum non-parole period of 17 years applied, given the calculated planning, unlawful entry, and the level of brutality involved. The Crown argued for a starting point in the range of 19 to 21 years, while the defence contested the degree of planning and the significance of the unlawful entry. The court found that the evidence demonstrated significant planning, unlawful entry, and extreme brutality, justifying the minimum non-parole period.

The court's reasoning was that Smith had meticulously planned the murder, which involved sustained effort and patience. The attack was planned to coincide with Ms Taufale's vulnerability when she slept, and Smith attempted to disguise the crime by creating a false entry point. The brutality of the murder, involving multiple stab wounds and slashing of the victim's throat, was high. The court concluded that at least three factors—calculated planning, unlawful entry, and brutality—triggered the minimum non-parole period. The court acknowledged Smith's difficult background and mental health issues but found that these factors did not mitigate the gravity of the crime. The court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years.

In conclusion, the court ordered Smith to serve a minimum of 17 years in prison before being eligible for parole, reflecting the severity and premeditation of the crime. The court emphasized the significant impact on the victims' families and the trauma suffered by Ms Taufale's 15-year-old son, who discovered his mother's body. The court's decision underscores the importance of holding offenders accountable for their actions, particularly in cases involving premeditated and brutal violence.

Orders