R v Tinei - [2023] NZHC 1869

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-092-007447

[2023] NZHC 1869

THE KING

v

POI TINEI

Hearing: 19 July 2023

Counsel:

HD Benson-Pope and LA Taula for Crown PL Borich KC for Defendant

Judgment:

19 July 2023

SENTENCING REMARKS OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Manukau. PL Borich KC, Manukau.

R v TINEI [2023] NZHC 1869 [19 July 2023]

Introduction

[1] Poi Tinei, on 18 September last year you murdered Teao Wiki. You did so by pouring petrol over her and setting her alight. You did nothing to help as others tried to douse the resulting house fire and, as I shall discuss, you have a history of threatening and harming the victim.

[2] It is common ground you must be sentenced to life imprisonment.1 The only issue is the number of years you must serve before you may become eligible for parole. The law calls this a minimum period of imprisonment. It is my focus today.

Facts

[3] By the time of the offending, you had been in a relationship with the victim for approximately three years. The two of you had repeatedly separated and reconciled. Indeed, you and Ms Wiki had been apart until approximately two weeks before the offending. She then came to stay with you and your family.

[4] On the evening of Saturday, 17 September last year, the two of you were at a bar. You argued. The victim left and went to the home of a nearby family member. You stayed at the bar.

[5] You came home at approximately 9.30 that evening. She returned at approximately 11.13 pm.

[6] You and the victim then argued. Another member of the household heard that about midnight.

[7] You had a petrol can in your bedroom. You poured petrol over the victim, on the mattress, and around the bedroom. You then set the petrol alight.

[8]The fire activated a smoke alarm, waking those inside.

1 Sentencing Act 2002, s 102.

[9] Your brother heard sounds from your bedroom consistent with thumping and slapping, followed by the victim crying out for help.

[10] At some point, you left the home. You made no attempt to help the victim or check other members of your family were not in danger. When members of the public and your brother-in-law attempted to douse the fire using a garden hose, you “appeared to try to hinder their efforts”.2

[11] When emergency services arrived, you were repeatedly asked if there was anyone else inside. You ignored some of these questions and gave inconsistent responses to others. You did not say the victim was inside. The summary of facts also describes you as being evasive and mingling with the crowd of onlookers.

[12]You suffered severe burns to your feet, legs, back and neck.

[13] The victim’s body was found inside the home later that day. She was in the bathroom, lying face down in the bathtub. That room is across from, or…

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 Tinei

Details

AGLC: R v Tinei [2023] NZHC 1869
Case: [2023] NZHC 1869
Decision Date: 19 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, handed down its sentencing remarks in the case of the King versus Poi Tinei, CRI-2022-092-007447. Tinei was convicted of the murder of Teao Wiki, which he committed by pouring petrol over her and setting her alight. The court was required to decide the number of years Tinei must serve before becoming eligible for parole, also known as the minimum period of imprisonment. The sole issue was whether the murder was especially bad, which would result in a minimum period of not less than 17 years. The Crown argued for a minimum period of not less than 19 and a half years, subject to a guilty plea discount, while the defence argued for a minimum period of 15, 16, or perhaps 17 years. The court found the murder to be especially bad due to the high level of brutality, cruelty, depravity, or callousness exhibited by Tinei. The court agreed with the Crown's argument that the murder was especially bad, and the minimum period of imprisonment was set at 18 years, deducting one and a half years for Tinei's guilty plea. The court imposed life imprisonment with a minimum period of 18 years for the murder of Teao Wiki.

The court considered several aggravating factors, including Tinei's abuse of the victim's trust, his history of threatening and harming the victim, his being on bail for other offences at the time of the murder, and the existence of a protection order against him. The only mitigating factor considered was Tinei's reasonably prompt guilty plea. The court compared Tinei's case to three similar cases where the murder was considered especially bad due to the use of fire as an instrument of violence. The court found Tinei's offending to be of equal or greater seriousness and imposed a minimum period of 18 years, deducting one and a half years for the guilty plea. The court emphasised that an 18-year minimum period was necessary to hold Tinei accountable, denounce the offending, deter others from similar offending, and protect the community.

Orders