R v Tahau - [2025] NZHC 3149

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2024-029-000295

[2025] NZHC 3149

THE KING

v

KAYTEE NGAIRE TAHAU

Appearances:
B O’Connor and D Cole for the Crown

A Fairley and A Pilkington for the Defendant

Sentence:

17 October 2025

SENTENCING NOTES OF BECROFT J

Solicitors:
Marsden Woods Inskip Smith, Whangarei Thomson Wilson, Whangarei

R v TAHAU [2025] NZHC 3149 [17 October 2025]

The charges

[1] Ms Kaytee Tahau, at the age of 48, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to one charge of murder1 and one charge of assault with a weapon.2

[2] The presumptive sentence for murder is life imprisonment. In this case, that is the sentence the Court must impose on you. The only issue is the length of the minimum term of imprisonment that you must serve before you are first eligible for parole consideration.

[3] First today, I want to acknowledge the presence and input of the family of the deceased, Ms Saralee Moke, who are here in court today. Saralee was your cousin, Ms Tahau. I acknowledge you all and that the entire wider family has been affected by your actions Ms Tahau.

[4] It is appropriate to pause and to acknowledge that a life has been lost. And it is right to remember that, and to remember Saralee in particular. Nothing that this court does today can bring her life back, and what I am about to say cannot value her life in terms of numbers or in any sentencing approach. But it is nevertheless the approach that must be taken.

Facts

[5] As to the facts of the offending, Ms Tahau, at the time, you lived alone in a caravan at a holiday park in Northland where you worked as a cleaner.

[6] Ms Saralee Moke, your cousin, who you went on to kill, was visiting you at the time.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 167 and 171. Maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
2 Crimes Act, s 202C. Maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.

[7] Also visiting you was Ms Renee Bevan who lived in Australia and had been your partner while you were in Australia. She arrived in New Zealand on 29 March 2024. You and your partner—Ms Bevan—were staying in the caravan. Ms Moke was staying in a tent outside.

[8] On the days leading up to the offending, it seems that some real tension developed between you and Ms Bevan (your partner). You accused her of “having a thing” for your cousin (that is Ms Moke). You were violent towards your partner. This included hitting her several times with an open hand. You appeared to become significantly jealous of Ms Moke at the time, and you thought she was spending undue alone time with your partner.

[9] This incident occurred in the evening of 3 April 2024 and possibly into the early hours of 4 April 2024.

[10] Ms Moke had generously paid for a cabin for you and Ms…

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 Tahau

Details

AGLC: R v Tahau [2025] NZHC 3149
Case: [2025] NZHC 3149
Decision Date: 17 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Tauranga Registry, the case of R v Tahau was heard before Becroft J. The defendant, Kaytee Ngaire Tahau, pleaded guilty to charges of murder and assault with a weapon. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, particularly focusing on the minimum term of imprisonment for the murder charge, given the mandatory life sentence for such a crime. The court also had to consider the assault charge, which involved the use of a weapon.

Becroft J meticulously reviewed the aggravating and mitigating factors surrounding the case. Aggravating factors included the use of a large knife in a deliberate attack, the element of premeditation, and the significant loss to the victim's family. Mitigating factors considered were the defendant's guilty plea, her first-time offender status, and her background of exposure to violence and alcohol from a young age, which contributed to her severe alcohol use disorder and other mental health issues. The court balanced these factors to determine an appropriate minimum term, ultimately deciding on an 11-year minimum term for the murder charge, with an additional one-year uplift for the assault with a weapon charge. The total sentence was life imprisonment with a minimum term of 12 years. Additionally, a concurrent one-year sentence was imposed for the assault charge.

In conclusion, the court imposed a life sentence with a minimum term of 12 years for the murder charge and a concurrent one-year sentence for the assault with a weapon charge. This decision reflects the gravity of the crimes committed and the need to balance the purposes of sentencing, including deterrence, denunciation, and the protection of society.

Orders