R v Tainui - [2019] NZHC 626

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2018-009-3102

[2019] NZHC 626

THE QUEEN

v

PAUL POUNAMU TAINUI

Hearing: 28 March 2019

Counsel:

P A Currie for Crown

R Buddicom and L Drummond for Defendant

Judgment:

28 March 2019

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MANDER J

[1] Mr Tainui, I will ask you to stand at the completion of my sentencing remarks, but you may remain seated until that point.

[2] Mr Tainui, you are for sentence this morning for the rape and murder of Nicole Tuxford. You pleaded guilty to murder before Christmas and in February pleaded guilty to the rape charge.

The facts

[3] On the morning of Saturday 7 April last year, you raped and murdered Ms Tuxford in her own home, having broken into her house the previous night and waited for her return the following morning.

R v TAINUI [2019] NZHC 626 [28 March 2019]

[4] You and Ms Tuxford had worked for the same company for approximately a year and, despite your age differences, had socialised as part of a larger group of employees. It is apparent that Ms Tuxford knew about your past and, it is reported, was helping you with counselling and life coaching. In February 2018 Ms Tuxford left the company. By that time, you had indicated that you wanted more than simply friendship from Ms Tuxford. You wanted to develop a sexual relationship with her. She rebuffed those overtures.

[5] Over the course of March, you continued to pursue Ms Tuxford, telling her that you wanted to spend more time with her. On 26 March, you sent Ms Tuxford a text message telling her that you had just found out she was in a relationship with another man and that you were angry. In the days preceding 7 April, you told workmates that Ms Tuxford was being disloyal to you and referred to her in derogatory terms. You sought to contact her; texting her and driving to her home. Other than an exchange of text messages, you were not able to make contact with her. You were becoming increasingly preoccupied with Ms Tuxford, and jealous of her relationship with another man.

[6] On the night of Friday 6 April, Ms Tuxford stayed the night at her partner’s address. She had arranged to meet an electrician at her property the following morning. That Friday evening, you spent a number of hours drinking in a local bar before driving to Ms Tuxford’s address. You sent her a text message and attempted to contact her by phone. You did not make contact. Later that night, you were stopped by police at an alcohol checkpoint. You were processed for excess breath alcohol and forbidden to drive. You were not permitted to take with you two large knives which remained locked in the boot of the vehicle.

[7] After being released by the police, you caught a taxi to a location in close proximity to Ms Tuxford’s address.…

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 Tainui

Details

AGLC: R v Tainui [2019] NZHC 626
Case: [2019] NZHC 626
Decision Date: 28 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Paul Pounamu Tainui has been sentenced for the rape and murder of Nicole Tuxford. Tainui had pleaded guilty to the charges of murder and rape before sentencing. The court had to determine the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment for the murder charge, as well as whether to impose a life sentence without parole. The court also had to decide whether to impose a sentence of preventive detention for the rape charge. The court took into account the aggravating factors of the case, including the premeditated nature of the murder, the extreme violence used, and the repetition of similar offending against a previous victim. The court also considered the defendant's history of violent offending and the high risk he posed to the community. The court decided that a minimum period of 28 years' imprisonment was appropriate for the murder charge, and that a sentence of life imprisonment without parole was necessary. The court also imposed a sentence of preventive detention for the rape charge, to be served concurrently with the life sentence.

The court emphasised that the sentence was intended to hold Tainui accountable for his actions, to denounce his conduct, to deter him and others from committing similar offences, and to protect the community. The court noted that Tainui was unlikely to ever be eligible for parole, given the high risk he posed to the community. The court also warned Tainui that if he committed any further serious violent offences, he would serve the resulting sentence without parole.

Orders