R v Tione - [2016] NZHC 2439

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-055-002047 [2016] NZHC 2439

THE QUEEN

v

TIONE TIONE

Hearing: 13 October 2016

Appearances:

Y V Yelavich and M K Regan for the Crown
S Cassidy and M Allen for the Defendant

Sentence:

13 October 2016

SENTENCE OF EDWARDS J

Solicitors: Kayes Fletcher Walker Limited, Auckland
Public Defence Service, Auckland

R v TIONE [2016] NZHC 2439 [13 October 2016]

Introduction

[1] Mr Tione, I am sentencing you today for the murder of Troy Wright. A jury found you guilty of that murder charge after a trial in this Court.

[2] In sentencing you I shall:

(a) Summarise your offending;

(b) Explain the impact of your offending on Troy’s family;

(c) Explain your personal circumstances; and

(d) Explain how I reached the sentence that I am going to deliver.

[3] The sentence for murder is life imprisonment unless it would be manifestly unjust.1 There is no suggestion that a sentence of life imprisonment would be unjust in your case and that is the sentence that I intend to impose. The question I must decide is what minimum period of imprisonment should be imposed. That is the term you must serve before being eligible for parole.

[4] Before I go on, I do want to acknowledge the family of Troy Wright who are in Court today. The sentencing process cannot respond adequately to the loss of a loved one in such senseless circumstances. I thank you for your courage in attending Court today, and throughout the trial. It is clear that Troy had a loving and supportive family.

Summary of offending

[5] Mr Tione, I now summarise your offending.

[6] By all accounts Troy Wright was a kind and gentle man. He was 43 years old at the time of his death. He lived in a one-bedroom house on his own and was on a
sickness benefit. That was because he had schizophrenia which he was managing

1 Sentencing Act 2002, s 102(1).

through medication. He was assisted by a variety of community agencies and dedicated, caring individuals, many of whom gave evidence at the trial.

[7] You met Troy in 2015. You formed a friendship. It was not, however, a friendship of equals. In the weeks leading up to the murder, you showed an interest in moving from the caravan park where you were living to Troy’s home. You had already shifted some of your things into his house and had sent text messages to your family telling them that you had secured a new place. But, in the days before the murder you had been told that your application to take over the tenancy of Troy’s house had been declined.

[8] On the evening of 22 September 2015 you spent the day helping your brother move into his new place. You then spent the evening drinking with your brother and his partner, sharing four to five boxes of Flame beer over the course of the evening. In the early hours of…

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 Tione

Details

AGLC: R v Tione [2016] NZHC 2439
Case: [2016] NZHC 2439
Decision Date: 13 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tione was heard in the High Court of New Zealand. The defendant, Tione, was convicted of the murder of Troy Wright and was sentenced by Edwards J. The court was required to decide on the appropriate minimum term of imprisonment before Tione would be eligible for parole. The legal issues involved assessing Tione's culpability, the impact of his offending, his personal circumstances, and whether any mitigating factors warranted a deviation from the statutory minimum term of 17 years.

The court assessed Tione's culpability by considering the brutal and callous nature of the assault, Troy's vulnerability due to his mental health condition, and the fact that the attack occurred in Troy's home. The court identified three aggravating features, with the brutal and callous nature of the assault engaging section 104 of the Sentencing Act. Despite Tione's counsel arguing that the attack did not reach the level of brutality required to engage section 104, the court found the prolonged and serious nature of the attack, along with the callousness displayed, met the threshold. Mitigating factors considered included Tione's mental health and his remorse, which the court found warranted a discount of 20% and a small additional discount for remorse, respectively. The court concluded that a minimum period of imprisonment of 13 years was justified, considering Tione's mental health condition made imposing the 17-year minimum manifestly unjust.

Edwards J sentenced Tione to life imprisonment for the murder of Troy Wright, with a minimum period of 13 years before he would be eligible for parole. The court emphasized that the final decision on parole would rest with the Parole Board.

Orders