R v Werahiko - [2013] NZHC 3413

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WANGANUI REGISTRY

CRI 2012-083-890 [2013] NZHC 3413

THE QUEEN

v

MICHAEL UMANUI WERAHIKO

Hearing: 18 December 2013

Counsel: L C Rowe for Crown
C P Brosnahan and D Goodlet for Accused

Sentence: 18 December 2013

SENTENCE OF RONALD YOUNG J

[1] Mr Werahiko, you have pleaded guilty to murder. You pleaded guilty after a sentence indication hearing. The sentence indication I gave was on the basis that no provocation had occurred. At the time of the sentence indication your counsel advised of the probability that submissions and possibly evidence would be given at final sentencing alleging provocation and they would invite me to reduce your minimum period of imprisonment.

[2] I have been advised by you today that you do not wish to have your lawyers any longer represent you. You have told me you wish to change your plea to not guilty. It is a matter for you to judge whether or not you have lawyers representing you, I know that they have made considerable effort to try and convince you to
continue to allow them to act for you.

R v WERAHIKO [2013] NZHC 3413 [18 December 2013]

[3] Secondly, having heard what you had to say to me today I do not consider that there is any basis upon which you could get leave to change your plea. And so the fair thing for me to do, taking account of your rights but also the situation of the victims as well as societies rights, I have decided to proceed with sentencing today. I have offered you the chance to give evidence relating to the alleged provocation but you have chosen not to do so and in those circumstances I discount that factor.

[4] I deal firstly with the facts here. You and Mr Round became friends although there was a substantial age disparity. Mr Round was 77 years of age and lived alone in Wanganui when you killed him. He had only shortly before moved to Wanganui. He was a well known journalist and a member of the New Zealand Order of Merit.

[5] The two of you met at a gym. Over a period of six months in late 2011 you and Mr Round spent quite some time together. You told Mr Round that you wanted to turn your life around and he was prepared to support you. However, during the time of your acquaintance you committed further crimes and you were imprisoned. You were released from prison in May 2012.

[6] On the day you were released you headed back to Wanganui and during the journey you consumed considerable alcohol. You were met by Mr Round at the bus stop and afterwards further alcohol was purchased. You and Mr Round then returned to his Campbell Street property. The two of you consumed further alcohol. You then went into town. By late in the day you were said to be intoxicated, disruptive and abusive. You threatened people with violence.…

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 Werahiko

Details

AGLC: R v Werahiko [2013] NZHC 3413
Case: [2013] NZHC 3413
Decision Date: 18 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Werahiko involved the sentencing of Michael Umanui Werahiko, who had pleaded guilty to the murder of Mr Round. The High Court of New Zealand, Wanganui Registry, was responsible for the sentencing. The central issue in the case was determining the appropriate sentence for Werahiko, considering the nature of the crime and the mitigating factors presented. The court had to decide whether to accept the Crown's proposed sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum period of 17 years, taking into account Werahiko's guilty plea and the circumstances surrounding the murder. Additionally, the court had to consider the impact of the "three strikes" law on Werahiko's sentencing.

The court began by examining the brutality of the crime, noting that Werahiko had violently attacked Mr Round, causing extensive injuries that ultimately led to his death. The court also considered the kindness shown by Mr Round towards Werahiko, who had taken an interest in him despite his troubled past. The court then turned to the mitigating factors, specifically Werahiko's guilty plea. Although the plea was made close to the trial date, the court found that it warranted a reduction in the proposed sentence. The court concluded that a starting sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum period of 15 years was appropriate, reflecting both the severity of the crime and the mitigating factor of the guilty plea. The court also issued a "first strike" warning to Werahiko, informing him of the consequences of committing another serious violent offence.

In summary, the High Court of New Zealand, Wanganui Registry, sentenced Michael Umanui Werahiko to life imprisonment with a minimum period of 15 years for the murder of Mr Round. The court considered the brutality of the crime, the kindness shown by the victim, and the mitigating factor of Werahiko's guilty plea in arriving at the sentence. The court also issued a "first strike" warning to Werahiko, highlighting the potential consequences of committing another serious violent offence.

Orders