[2] As to the facts which Ms Te Wini is to be sentenced, sometime late on the evening of 24 November 2008 or early in the morning of 25 November 2008, Ms Te Wini and her co-offender, Ms Churchward, entered the home of the victim, Mr John Rowe, in Windsor Street, Opotiki.

[3] Mr Rowe was retired, having taught at Opotiki College for many years prior to his retirement in 1990. He lived alone in his home, having been widowed shortly before his retirement. The home at which Ms Te Wini was living at the time of the offending backed onto the victim’s property.

[4] On the evening in question Ms Churchward came to Ms Te Wini’s home and the two of them agreed to go out and find cannabis. They first entered a house bus because they thought they would find cannabis there. When that effort proved fruitless they decided to rob someone instead. They settled on robbing Mr Rowe.

[5] In order to do so they equipped themselves with a knife, a screwdriver and other items in order to effect entry. It is not suggested that these implements were taken in order to effect violence. They climbed over the fence between the two properties and forced their way into the house through a bathroom window.

[6] Both Ms Te Wini and Ms Churchward entered the sitting room. While searching through the sitting room Ms Te Wini inadvertently caused a noise by opening a small container. Fearing the consequences of discovery the two offenders armed themselves with items they found in the sitting room. Ms Churchward handed a long, solid piece of wood, which the victim apparently used as a walking stick, to Ms Te Wini but Ms Te Wini handed this back and instead picked up a

thinner piece of wood, more akin to a broom handle. The plan seems to have been to knock the victim out.

[7] The offenders went into the victim’s bedroom with their weapons but hesitated. They returned to the sitting room where they encouraged themselves to proceed with their plan. They then re-entered the victim’s darkened bedroom.

[8] Ms Churchward struck a number of blows to the victim’s head, chest and arms. After that Ms Te Wini joined in and struck the victim several times. Ms Te Wini’s weapon was broken during the assault, although it is unclear whether it was due to the force…

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 Wini

Details

AGLC: R v Te Wini [2012] NZHC 1593
Case: [2012] NZHC 1593
Decision Date: 6 July 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerns the sentencing of Ms Lori Lea Wairoa Te Wini for the murder of Mr John Rowe. Ms Te Wini pleaded guilty to murder under s 168 of the Crimes Act 1961, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The court considered various mitigating and aggravating factors, including Ms Te Wini's age, her personal background, her remorse, and the nature of the crime. The Crown argued for a sentence of life imprisonment, while Ms Te Wini's counsel submitted that a sentence of less than life imprisonment would be appropriate due to her age, remorse, and the circumstances of the crime. The court ultimately determined that a sentence of life imprisonment was warranted, but reduced the minimum non-parole period to 10 years, taking into account Ms Te Wini's guilty plea and remorse.

In reaching its decision, the court considered several cases that had considered whether a sentence of less than life imprisonment was appropriate in cases of murder. The court found that while the circumstances of the offending and the offender in this case were similar to those in cases where a sentence of less than life imprisonment was imposed, there were not enough exceptional mitigating factors to warrant a departure from the presumption of life imprisonment for murder. The court also noted that Ms Te Wini's age and remorse could only have a limited effect on the sentence, as the Court of Appeal had made it clear that exceptional matters both in the circumstances of the offending and the offender were necessary to displace the presumption. The court ultimately determined that a sentence of life imprisonment was appropriate, but reduced the minimum non-parole period to 10 years, taking into account Ms Te Wini's guilty plea and remorse.

The final orders of the court were that Ms Te Wini be sentenced to life imprisonment with a statutory minimum non-parole period of 10 years. This means that she will be eligible for parole after 10 years, but will continue to be subject to the sentence of life imprisonment and can be recalled to continue to serve that sentence if she reoffends while in the community.

Orders