[1] Mr Tarapata I am addressing you now at this stage. You may stay seated for the moment. I will ask you to stand at a later stage but bear in mind Mr Tarapata I am talking to you.

[2] You appear for sentencing today having been convicted after a jury trial of the murders of Paul Fanning and Paul Matthews. As you will know, the law provides that unless special circumstances exist, and they do not exist here, the law is that you must be sentenced to life imprisonment, and you must be ordered to serve a specified minimum period of imprisonment before you may be considered for parole. The issue for your sentencing today is how long the minimum period of imprisonment should be.

Relevant Facts

[3] As at 19 July 2014 your partner, Tamara Cassie, was a part time employee of Mr Fanning’s Ezycash business in South Auckland. Mr Matthews was also employed there. On that day Ms Cassie had made an appointment to meet a customer at the store in relation to a cellphone which had been given as collateral for a loan.

[4] Ms Cassie went to Ezycash at about midday. You were with her in the car, as were your two children. Ms Cassie went inside to see the customer, leaving you and the children in the car.

[5] A few minutes after Ms Cassie went into the store you also went in there. You had armed yourself with at least one knife. You made your way through the front part of the store, without being noticed by Ms Cassie, who was busy with the customer. Mr Fanning and Mr Matthews were in the lunch room at the rear of the store at the time. They were both known to you.

[6] On the evidence, it appears that you slit Mr Matthews’ throat as he was sitting at the table eating lunch. In all, Mr Matthews was stabbed 15 times but he attempted to call for help. On the evidence, I find that you attacked Mr Matthews in two

stages, one of which was after he tried to resist. Very shortly after that you stabbed Mr Fanning six times. Both men were found lying on the floor of the lunch room. Both had died very quickly.

[7] After this you went back to the front of the store, collected Ms Cassie (who was not aware of what had happened) and returned to the car. The whole incident in the store took less than three minutes. You and Ms Cassie then drove through various parts…

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 Tarapata

Details

AGLC: R v Tarapata [2015] NZHC 1594
Case: [2015] NZHC 1594
Decision Date: 9 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Tarapata, the defendant, Zarn Tarapata, was convicted of the murders of Paul Fanning and Paul Matthews. The High Court of New Zealand was tasked with determining the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment Tarapata must serve before being considered for parole. Tarapata had armed himself with a knife and attacked the victims in a store where his partner was working. Matthews was stabbed fifteen times, while Fanning was stabbed six times. Tarapata showed no remorse during the trial and pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, which was rejected by the jury.

The court considered various factors, including the severity of the crime, Tarapata's mental illness, and his remorse. The court found that Tarapata's mental illness did not make a 17-year minimum period of imprisonment manifestly unjust. The court also found that the gravity of the offence, the level of violence involved, and the impact on the victims' families warranted a high minimum period of imprisonment. The court ultimately decided on a minimum period of 17 years, which was not manifestly unjust.

Tarapata was sentenced to life imprisonment on each charge, to be served concurrently, with a minimum period of 17 years before being considered for parole. The court found that the 17-year minimum period was not manifestly unjust and accepted Dr Skipworth's recommendation that a hybrid order under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act was not appropriate.

Orders