R v Solomon - [2017] NZHC 3057

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2016-092-012807 [2017] NZHC 3057

THE QUEEN

v

DENIS ROBERT HENRY SOLOMON VINCENT MANA GEORGE

Hearing: 8 December 2017

Appearances:

N Walker and Y Yelavich for the Crown
S Tait and J Hudson for Mr Solomon
A Simperingham for Mr George

Sentence:

8 December 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF HINTON J

Counsel/Solicitors:
Kayes Fletcher Walker, Manukau
Shane Tait, Barrister, Manukau
Woodward Chrisp, Gisborne

R v SOLOMON AND GEORGE [2017] NZHC 3057 [8 December 2017]

Introduction

[1] Mr Solomon and Mr George, you may remain seated until I ask you to stand.

[2] You have both been found guilty of murdering Mr Clayton Ratima. You now appear for sentence.

[3] The penalty for murder in these circumstances is life imprisonment. What remains to be determined today is the minimum period of imprisonment that you must serve before you are eligible for parole.

[4] Before I proceed, I would like to acknowledge the presence of members of the victim’s whānau and his friends here today. There is nothing I can say or do that can change what happened when Mr Ratima was killed, but I do extend to you the deepest sympathy of the Court.

Facts

[5] The victim, Mr Ratima, was 24 years old at the time of his death. He was a prospect of the Tribesmen gang.

[6] Both of you were patched members of the Tribesmen gang, and had previous interactions with Mr Ratima through your involvement in the gang.

[7] On the night of 20 February 2016, both of you had attended the Ragamuffin concert in Auckland, before going to a night club. You had both been drinking solidly. At about 5.00 am on Sunday 21 February 2016, you went to the Tribesmen pad in Otara, along with two associates.

[8] Mr Ratima was acting as a gate warden at the Tribesmen gang “pad”. One of his duties was to let gang members onto the property through the front gate.

[9] What happened on arrival was not in evidence, but shortly after, you,

Mr George, woke up one of your associates who was asleep when you arrived. You said that Mr Ratima wanted to fight him. The associate was highly intoxicated, so

much so that he could hardly stand, and there followed a messy scrap between him and Mr Ratima, with neither really connecting with the other. You both encouraged the fight. The associate decided to walk away, saying, “I did not come here for this shit.” You were both very displeased with your associate walking away and swore and called him a fag. As your associate walked away, you both launched yourselves at Mr Ratima.

[10] You both then proceeded to attack Mr Ratima, punching him in the head and upper body, or one of you did and the other assisted. It appears Mr Ratima covered his head and tried to protect himself. He did not try to fight back. It…

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 Solomon

Details

AGLC: R v Solomon [2017] NZHC 3057
Case: [2017] NZHC 3057
Decision Date: 8 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Denis Robert Henry Solomon and Vincent Mana George were convicted of murdering Clayton Ratima, a prospect of the Tribesmen gang. The court was tasked with determining the minimum period of imprisonment they must serve before becoming eligible for parole. The legal issues included the appropriate minimum term of imprisonment, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case. The court assessed the gravity of the offence, the vulnerability of the victim, and the lack of remorse shown by the defendants, among other factors. After considering the aggravating features of the offending and reviewing relevant case law, the court determined that a minimum period of 10 years' imprisonment was sufficient to satisfy the purposes of sentencing, including accountability, denunciation, deterrence, and community protection. Consequently, both defendants were sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum of 10 years before eligibility for parole.

The final orders of the court were that Denis Robert Henry Solomon and Vincent Mana George were each sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Clayton Ratima, with a minimum of 10 years' imprisonment to be served before becoming eligible for parole.

Orders