Legal Research
Cases
R v Stone

R v Stone

Case [2024] NZHC 2046 25 July 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-092-8066

[2024] NZHC 2046

THE KING

v

CHANTELLE ANIWA STONE

Hearing: 25 July 2024

Appearances:

C P Howard and R J McDonald for Crown J Murdoch and F A Chalmers for Defendant

Judgment:

25 July 2024

SENTENCING NOTES OF MUIR J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Manukau J Murdoch, Blenheim
Public Defence Service, Manukau

Copy to: C Kapitan, New Zealand Herald.

R v STONE [2024] NZHC 2046 [25 July 2024]

Introduction

[1] Ms Chantelle Stone, you are for sentence this morning having been found guilty by a jury on 13 May 2024 of the murder of Mr Peter Rerekura.

[2] In respect of a conviction for murder, I must sentence you to life imprisonment, unless that would be manifestly unjust.1

[3] I can indicate at the outset that I am persuaded by the Crown and defence submissions that it would indeed be manifestly unjust to sentence you to life imprisonment. As a result, I intend to impose a fixed term sentence. I hope that this initial indication will in some way assist in supporting you through the balance of my sentencing remarks. I recognise that with your particular challenges—resulting, of course, in you being assigned a highly experienced and able communications assistant for the duration of your trial—there is an obligation on my part to be as concise as possible. My apologies if some of the matters I must necessarily cover are difficult for you to understand. I am sure Ms Murdoch will help you work through the written sentencing notes when they are ultimately published.

Background

[4]I need to begin with a brief account of your offending.

[5] The victim is your former partner, Mr Peter Rerekura with whom you had been in a relationship for approximately two and a half years at the time you killed him. I’ll speak more about the nature of that relationship shortly, suffice to say it was characterised by multiple instances of domestic abuse against you, and with you both exhibiting highly unregulated behaviour when intoxicated.

[6] At 6.35 pm on 9 October 2022 after a seemingly normal day, you and Mr Rerekura began drinking in your Nissan X-Trail vehicle which was parked at the end of the driveway of [REDACTED] Kendall Court, Wattle Downs—the home where you and Mr Rerekura resided with other members of your immediate family. Well into your mutual consumption of a second box of Flame beer, Mr Rerekura started

1 Sentencing Act 2002, s 102(1).

becoming aggressive. He was heard yelling things like “this is my fucking house”. He taunted the partner of your sister, Mr James Truman, another occupant of the address. MrTruman saw you telling Mr Rerekura to be quiet, saying “that’s my, um blood that you’re disrespecting”. He saw you lightly push Mr Rerekura on the shoulder during the course of this exchange. At this point you were both standing adjacent to the Nissan vehicle.

[7] Mr Rerekura led…

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 Stone

Details

AGLC: R v Stone [2024] NZHC 2046
Case: [2024] NZHC 2046
Decision Date: 25 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chantelle Aniwa Stone was convicted of murdering her former partner, Mr Peter Rerekura, and was sentenced by Muir J in the High Court of New Zealand. The court had to decide whether a life sentence would be manifestly unjust and, if so, determine an appropriate fixed term sentence. The court found that the circumstances justified a fixed term sentence due to the exceptional nature of Stone's background, including chronic exposure to domestic violence and alcohol abuse, which significantly impaired her ability to regulate her behavior.

Stone's history of abusive relationships and trauma, coupled with her intoxication at the time of the offence, led the court to conclude that life imprisonment would be manifestly unjust. The court compared Stone's case to three similar cases where finite sentences were imposed due to the offenders' backgrounds and circumstances. Stone was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment, with no minimum period of imprisonment, as the court believed the Parole Board was better suited to assess her risk to the community after she had addressed her alcohol issues and other underlying problems.

Orders