R v Tangira - [2025] NZHC 2118

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-090-5469

[2025] NZHC 2118

THE KING

v

LORENZO TANGIRA

Hearing: 31 July 2025

Appearances:

A McClintock and E Kerr for Crown V Feyen and M Edgar for Defendant

Sentenced:

31 July 2025

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland
Counsel: V Feyen/M Edgar/H Aitken, Auckland Copy to: Media (C Kapitan, C Owen and S Braunias)

R v TANGIRA [2025] NZHC 2118 [31 July 2025]

[1] Lorenzo Tangira, you are before the Court for sentence on the charge of murder. You pleaded guilty to the murder of Ramandeep Singh on the morning that your jury trial was scheduled to commence.

[2] The sentence for murder in your case is life imprisonment. The only issue for the Court this morning is the length of the minimum non-parole period. But first I set out the facts surrounding your offending from the agreed summary of facts.

[3] On 18 December 2023, the day he was murdered, Ramandeep Singh was only 25 years old. He was working as an Armourguard security guard. That was a second job for him which he had taken in order to supplement his income. At the time you were about 26 years old. Your co-defendant, who was found unfit to stand trial but was also involved in the assault during which Mr Singh was killed, was 17 years old. Neither of you had any previous dealings with the deceased, Mr Singh.

[4] On the evening of 17 December 2023, you and your co-accused, together with others, had been drinking at a home in Reverie Place, Massey. You became heavily intoxicated and affected by alcohol and late in the evening, you and your co-accused and other associates went to the Royal Reserve on Beauchamp Drive in Massey.

[5] One of Mr Singh’s duties that evening as a security officer was to lock up Royal Reserve. He drove his car to the Reserve. There was an altercation between your co- accused and Mr Singh and you became involved. You grabbed Mr Singh by the rear of his Hi-Vis vest and swung him around and proceeded to forcefully punch him repeatedly in the face. As a result Mr Singh fell to the ground and began bleeding from his facial injuries. I note here that you are a much bigger man physically than Mr Singh, who was a small man. He weighed only 46 kgs at the time. Mr Tangira, you are a physically imposing man.

[6] Mr Singh managed to get up and attempted to escape by getting inside his car. Your co-accused kicked at the driver’s windows and proceeded to jump on the bonnet of the car. You remained involved. In your pursuit of Mr Singh during the incident your hand became shut in the door of the car and was injured, causing it to bleed. After this you tried to reach Mr Singh through the back of the car. Mr Singh…

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 Tangira

Details

AGLC: R v Tangira [2025] NZHC 2118
Case: [2025] NZHC 2118
Decision Date: 31 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Lorenzo Tangira was sentenced for the murder of Ramandeep Singh, a security guard who was brutally assaulted while on duty. Tangira pleaded guilty at the commencement of his jury trial. The court was tasked with determining the length of the minimum non-parole period for Tangira's life sentence. The primary legal issue was whether the minimum non-parole period should be set at the starting point of 15 years proposed by the Crown, or at the lower figure of around 11 years suggested by Tangira's counsel, taking into account mitigating factors such as his guilty plea and personal background. The court also had to consider whether section 104 of the Sentencing Act applied, which would mandate a minimum non-parole period of at least 17 years if certain conditions were met.

The court found that the murder was committed with a high level of brutality and callousness, engaging section 104 of the Sentencing Act. However, it determined that imposing a minimum non-parole period of 17 years would be manifestly unjust, given Tangira's limited culpability, his guilty plea, and his personal circumstances. After considering aggravating factors such as the unprovoked nature of the attack and the extreme violence used, as well as mitigating factors such as Tangira's guilty plea and disadvantaged background, the court set the minimum non-parole period at 13 years and 9 months.

The court concluded that the appropriate sentence was life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 13 years and 9 months, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and Tangira's role in the brutal and callous murder of Ramandeep Singh.

Orders