R v Te Poono - [2020] NZHC 1188

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-092-012562

[2020] NZHC 1188

THE QUEEN

v

KIRIA TE POONO

Hearing: 2 June 2020

Counsel:

D B Stevens and M K Regan for the Crown M P Hislop and S J Gray for the Defendant

Sentence:

2 June 2020

SENTENCE OF EDWARDS J

Counsel: M P Hislop, Auckland
S J Gray, Auckland

Solicitors: Kayes Fletcher Walker Limited, Auckland

R v K TE POONO [2020] NZHC 1188 [2 June 2020]

[1] Kiria Te Poono, you are to be sentenced today for the murder of Mr Tusi. A jury found you guilty of that offence after a trial last year.

[2] Before I go any further, I do want to acknowledge the aiga of Mr Tusi who are here today. Ou te fa’atalofa atu i le aiga o Raille Tusi. I greet the family of Raille Tusi. Ou te fa’atalofa atu i le aiga o Raille Tusi. I greet the family of Raille Tusi. Fa’afetai tou afifio mai i lenei aso mā ōna fitā. Thank you for attending today, a day which has its challenges.

[3] Your frustration at the delays in sentencing are understandable. Please know that these delays were necessary to ensure the most just sentence is passed today. Nothing I will say today will respond adequately to the loss of a loved one, particularly in these circumstances. But I acknowledge your pain and your anger. It has a place in this sentencing and I will come back to it again shortly.

[4] Mr Te Poono, the sentence for murder is life imprisonment. I am required by the law to impose a minimum period of imprisonment of at least 10 years. There are two issues in your case. First, whether the imposition of life imprisonment would be manifestly unjust in your case. Second, how much more than the 10-year minimum period of imprisonment is required to hold you accountable, denounce your conduct, deter you and others, and protect the community from you.

Offending

[5] Sentencing follows a process, and the first step is to summarise your offending. This will be familiar to most who are attending here today. Some of what I say may be difficult to hear. But sentencing is a public process and so it is necessary that I go through again what happened.

[6] The murder took place at an address where you lived with your partner and children, and your partner’s family. You and your cousin were running a cannabis operation from a shed on that property.

[7] Another cousin arrived at the house that night and he brought Mr Tusi with him. You were not happy about that and it caused tension at the outset. After

conducting some business in the shed, you remained inside playing on the playstation. There were others in there with you. Mr Tusi was outside with your cousin. The conversation outside got louder, and Mr Tusi started yelling out gang…

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 Poono

Details

AGLC: R v Te Poono [2020] NZHC 1188
Case: [2020] NZHC 1188
Decision Date: 2 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Te Poono, Kiria Te Poono was found guilty of the murder of Mr Tusi by a jury. The central legal issues were whether the imposition of a life sentence would be manifestly unjust and the determination of the minimum period of imprisonment required beyond the statutory 10-year minimum. The court acknowledged the aiga of Mr Tusi, expressing sympathy for their loss and anger. The offending involved Te Poono retrieving a shotgun from a shed, loading it, and shooting Mr Tusi in the thigh, leading to his death. Aggravating factors included the lethal use of the weapon and the callous manner in which Mr Tusi was left to die, while mitigating factors considered included Te Poono's background, mental health, and remorse.

The court concluded that despite Te Poono's challenging background and mitigating factors, they did not render a life sentence manifestly unjust. The court held that the statutory purposes of denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the community justified a life sentence with a minimum period of imprisonment set at 10 years. This decision balanced the need to hold Te Poono accountable with the personal mitigating factors presented. The court emphasized the importance of bringing an end to the cycle of violence and highlighted the bravery in doing so. The sentence imposed was life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 years and an order for the destruction of the firearm.

Orders