R v Stroobant - [2017] NZHC 1122

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-090-349 [2017] NZHC 1122

THE QUEEN

v

JADEN LEE STROOBANT

Hearing: 26 May 2017

Appearances:

D G Johnstone and J Murdoch for Crown
E P Priest and S J Gray for Defendant

Judgment:

26 May 2017

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v STROOBANT [2017] NZHC 1122 [26 May 2017]

[1] Mr Stroobant, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to charges of murder and sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection. The mandatory sentence in respect of the charge of murder is life imprisonment. The maximum finite sentence on the charges of sexual violation is 20 years imprisonment. As you know, the Crown seeks the indeterminate sentence of preventive detention in respect of those charges.

The facts

[2] I sentence you on the basis of a summary of facts that you agreed to and signed before you entered your guilty pleas on 1 February 2017. This records that on the morning of 15 January 2016 you were staying at your mother’s address, or at least you were visiting your mother’s address, which is over the back fence from the victim in this matter. The victim, Ms Tian, is a 69 year old woman of Chinese descent who arrived in New Zealand approximately four years ago. She lived with her daughter and son-in-law in an address, as I have said, that was over the back fence from your mother’s address.

[3] Ms Tian’s daughter and son-in-law went to work as usual at about 9 or

9.30 am on 15 January 2016. At some stage during that morning you went to that address with the intention of burgling the address to take items of value from it. You encountered Ms Tian outside the address where she was gardening. You then dragged her inside and punched her on several occasions about the face and head. When she fell to the floor, you stamped on her face with your foot and also caused significant damage to her neck and chest. She was later found to have a broken hyoid bone in her neck and that she also had fractured ribs.

[4] The stomping to the head appears to have been what killed Ms Tian. The pathologist who conducted a post-mortem examination noted significant bleeding on the brain that is likely to have led to death.

[5] You then inserted a blunt object inside the anus and vagina of your victim. This was done with sufficient force to cause significant internal injuries. You then

went through the property to see if you could take items of value. You found an iPad and a quantity of Chinese currency. You also took a watch belonging to Ms Tian’s daughter. Closed circuit television later that day showed you going to a foreign exchange centre at a shopping mall where you exchanged the currency for New Zealand currency amounting to approximately $370.

[6] You then took some rudimentary steps to disguise your presence at the scene. A cloth with…

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 Stroobant

Details

AGLC: R v Stroobant [2017] NZHC 1122
Case: [2017] NZHC 1122
Decision Date: 26 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jaden Lee Stroobant pleaded guilty to charges of murder and sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection. The Crown sought the indeterminate sentence of preventive detention for these charges. The court found Stroobant guilty of murdering 69-year-old Tian and sexually violating her. The court sentenced Stroobant to life imprisonment on the murder charge, with a minimum term of 17 years before being eligible for parole. On the sexual violation charges, the court imposed a sentence of preventive detention with a minimum term of ten years. The court found that Stroobant was at high risk of committing another qualifying offence upon his release from prison, and that preventive detention was the only realistic means by which the community could be protected against this risk. The court rejected submissions that a sentence of preventive detention would be crushing on Stroobant, and that it would be of little moment given the fact that he would already be serving the indeterminate sentence of life imprisonment. The court found that a sentence of preventive detention could provide an incentive to Stroobant to engage in rehabilitative processes, and that it was an important factor in the present case.

Orders