R v Tihema - [2020] NZHC 2135

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2017-009-002687

CRI-2018-209-000234 [2020] NZHC 2135

THE QUEEN

v

DEBRA JEAN TIHEMA CYLE ROBERT JETSON MYLESHA TIHEMA

Hearing: 21 August 2020

Appearances:

D L Elsmore for Crown

N R and M E Rout for Defendant Debra Tihema

B Ayrey, K Gray and K Bucher for Defendant Cyle Jetson M I Sewell, K J Basire and SMH McManus for Defendant Mylesha Tihema

Judgment:

21 August 2020

SENTENCING NOTES OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] Debra Tihema, Cyle Jetson and Mylesha Tihema, you appear today for sentence for the murder of Pierclaudio Raviola. You were all convicted of murder following a jury trial in February and March 2020. Mr Jetson you are also here for sentence on a burglary charge having pleaded guilty to prior to trial.

[2] I am sorry that there has been a long gap between the trial and the sentencing. As you will all understand, that has been caused by the COVID-19 restrictions and the difficulty in getting the reports that I needed for the sentencing.

R v TIHEMA [2020] NZHC 2135 [21 August 2020]

[3] I want to start by telling you how I am going to proceed today. First, I am going to outline the facts of the offending as I have found them after hearing the evidence at trial.

[4] Second, I am going to tell you about what the law requires me to take into account when I sentence you for murder.

[5] Third, I am going to discuss your individual responsibility in the offending, and your personal circumstances, and then I will determine the appropriate sentence and minimum period of imprisonment. When I do that, I will deal with you in the order we have been going in all the time, first, Debra, then Cyle, and then Mylesha.

The offending

[6] The victim, Mr Raviola, first came into contact with the Tihema family when he was staying at the motel where you, Ms Tihema, and your daughter Mylesha were temporarily housed. You struck up a relationship with Mr Raviola which was prompted, on his side, by a desire for adult company and physical affection. It is clear these feelings were not reciprocated by you. However, you quickly came to view Mr Raviola as a source of benefits, such as money and food, and even a cell-phone. You took advantage of his loneliness and good nature and you offered him physical affection in return for those benefits.

[7] You said to others in your text messages that you did not find him attractive. You also said to them that you were “jst using [him] 4 al I cn get”, and “Im goin to eventualy bleed him dry”. In February of that year, when pressure was put on you by gang-affiliated family member to pay a debt, you hatched a plan to take Mr Raviola’s Toyota Vitz car from him.

[8] You persuaded Mr Raviola to lend his car to you…

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 Tihema

Details

AGLC: R v Tihema [2020] NZHC 2135
Case: [2020] NZHC 2135
Decision Date: 21 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tihema was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry. The defendants, Debra Jean Tihema, Cyle Robert Jetson, and Mylesha Tihema, were convicted of the murder of Pierclaudio Raviola and faced sentencing. The legal issues before the court were determining the appropriate sentences for the defendants, considering the aggravating and mitigating features of the crime, and whether a life sentence with a minimum period of imprisonment was appropriate under section 104 of the Sentencing Act. The court also had to consider the individual responsibility of each defendant and their personal circumstances.

The court outlined the facts of the offending, explaining that Debra Tihema had exploited the victim's loneliness and good nature for financial gain, leading to a plan to steal his car. The plan involved the defendants attacking the victim and causing fatal injuries. The court found that the murder involved a high level of premeditation, brutality, and vulnerability of the victim. The court considered the defendants' individual responsibility and personal circumstances in determining the appropriate sentences.

The court decided that a life sentence with a minimum period of imprisonment was appropriate for Debra Tihema, Cyle Jetson, and Mylesha Tihema. The court found that section 104 of the Sentencing Act applied, requiring a minimum non-parole period of 17 years for Debra Tihema and 10 years for Mylesha Tihema. For Cyle Jetson, the court decided on a minimum period of imprisonment of 11 years, taking into account his age, traumatic background, and potential for rehabilitation. The court also considered the defendants' roles in the crime, their levels of involvement, and their personal circumstances in determining the sentences.

Final Orders:
1. Debra Tihema is sentenced to life imprisonment with a 17-year minimum period of imprisonment for the charge of murder.
2. Cyle Jetson is sentenced to life imprisonment with an 11-year minimum period of imprisonment for the charge of murder and six months imprisonment for the charge of burglary, to be served concurrently.
3. Mylesha Tihema is sentenced to life imprisonment with a 10-year minimum period of imprisonment for the charge of murder.

Orders