R v Te Hiko - [2017] NZHC 1260

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2016-063-001304 [2017] NZHC 1260

THE QUEEN

v

JAMES WILLIAM MANUOA TE HIKO

Hearing: 9 June 2017

Appearances:

A Gordon and S Casey for Crown
F C K Wood for Prisoner

Judgment:

9 June 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF GILBERT J

Solicitors:
Gordon Pilditch, Rotorua
Tompkins Wake, Rotorua

R v TE HIKO [2017] NZHC 1260 [9 June 2017]

Introduction

[1] James Te Hiko, you appear for sentence today having been found guilty by a jury of murdering Nina Thompson.

Facts

[2] It is necessary to start by relating the facts of your offending because they are critical to the outcome. You and Ms Thompson had been in a relationship for some time but there had been a history of domestic violence, contributed to by your own violent upbringing and alcohol and drug abuse. To your credit, you had recognised that you needed help and had taken constructive steps to address your addiction and other issues. You were receiving counselling but clearly needed more intensive treatment in a residential programme. Unfortunately, there is a serious shortage of such programmes and you were waiting for a placement for such treatment at the time of the murder.

[3] Late in the afternoon of 19 April 2016, two of Ms Thompson’s friends arrived at your house with some alcohol. You were working outside while Ms Thompson was inside doing housework. You were not happy about these friends bringing alcohol to your home because of the addiction issues you were suffering from. You had been receiving counselling through the Raukawa Trust and had been attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings over the past six months. You knew that you needed to stay away from alcohol and other drugs but you had not succeeded in doing so.

[4] You and Ms Thompson enjoyed the company of these friends and you drank a few stubbies of beer with them. It seems that it was a pleasant and convivial evening and everyone seemed happy at the time the two women left, which would have been sometime between 9 and 10 pm.

[5] You would not have been significantly affected by alcohol at that stage. A total of 18 stubbies of beer had been consumed by five people over this four to five hour period. You claim that you also smoked methamphetamine during the course of the evening although no one witnessed this and there was no independent evidence

to support your claim. The meth pipes you said you used were not located during the thorough police search of the property over the following days. You sent a text message at 7.25 pm that evening to a friend asking if he could get you some methamphetamine. This indicates that you did not have any methamphetamine at that stage. Your friend replied that none was available. You also claim that you smoked some cannabis. Again, there is no independent evidence that this occurred although a quantity of cannabis was found in the boot of your…

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 Te Hiko

Details

AGLC: R v Te Hiko [2017] NZHC 1260
Case: [2017] NZHC 1260
Decision Date: 9 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Te Hiko involved James Te Hiko, who was sentenced for the murder of Nina Thompson. The court heard arguments from the Crown, represented by A Gordon and S Casey, and the defence, represented by F C K Wood. The sentencing was conducted by Gilbert J in the High Court of New Zealand. The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for Te Hiko, who had been found guilty of murdering Thompson. This involved considering the circumstances of the offence, Te Hiko’s history of violence and substance abuse, and the impact of the crime on the victim’s family.

The court detailed the brutal nature of the attack, noting that Te Hiko had inflicted at least 70 blows on Thompson, many while she was unconscious and unable to defend herself. The evidence demonstrated a high level of brutality, cruelty, and callousness. The court rejected Te Hiko's attempts to downplay his actions and minimise his culpability. The sentencing judge, Gilbert J, found that the murder was committed with extreme brutality, and thus, the statutory requirement for a minimum imprisonment period of 17 years under Section 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002 applied. The judge concluded that a minimum term of 17 years was appropriate to hold Te Hiko accountable and to protect the community.

The final orders of the court were that Te Hiko was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 17 years. This decision reflected the gravity of the crime and the need to ensure that Te Hiko is held accountable for his actions while also providing an opportunity for potential rehabilitation during his incarceration.

Orders