R v Wharekura - [2025] NZHC 751

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2022-025-000396

[2025] NZHC 751

THE KING

v

NAYA RAPIU FABIAN WHAREKURA

Hearing: 1 April 2025

Counsel:

M B Brownlie and A M MacKenzie for Crown S G Vidal for Defendant

Sentencing:

1 April 2025

SENTENCING NOTES OF RADICH J

[1] Naya Wharekura, you appear for sentencing today after a jury found you guilty of the murder1 of Chad Parekura and the attempted murder2 of Austin McGregor. The jury by its verdict was satisfied that you intentionally stabbed Mr Parekura, and that when you did so you were either intending to kill him or you knew that your actions would likely cause his death but you carried on regardless. The jury by its verdict was satisfied also that you intentionally stabbed Mr McGregor and that when you did so you intended to kill him.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 167 and 172; maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
2 Section 173; maximum penalty of 14 years.

R v WHAREKURA [2025] NZHC 751 [1 April 2025]

Approach to sentencing

[2] Under the Sentencing Act 2002, the main purposes of sentencing here are to hold you accountable for the harm you have caused by your offending; to promote a sense of responsibility for, and acknowledgement of, that harm; to denounce and deter such criminal conduct; and to assist in your rehabilitation and reintegration into society.3 I must consider the gravity of your offending and the degree of your culpability. Your sentence must be consistent with sentences imposed in other reasonably similar cases,4 and I should impose the least restrictive sentence appropriate in the circumstances.5

[3] When a person has committed murder, the Sentencing Act mandates that that person must be sentenced to imprisonment for life unless, given the circumstances of the offence and the person, a sentence of imprisonment for life would be manifestly unjust. The strong presumption in favour of life imprisonment reflects the sanctity of human life.6 It may only be displaced in compelling cases7 having regard to the principles and purposes of sentencing.8 There is no argument from anyone involved here that here there are no circumstances that would make life imprisonment manifestly unjust. As a result, you will be sentenced to imprisonment for life.

[4] The question that then arises is what the minimum period of imprisonment should be. The minimum period of imprisonment is the period of imprisonment an offender must serve before they can be considered for parole by the Parole Board. What I want to make clear is that the minimum period of imprisonment is not the time at which you will be released, and it is not the sentence. The sentence is life imprisonment and the Parole Board will not release you on parole unless it is satisfied that you do not pose a future risk to the community. And even if you are eventually released on parole after you have served the minimum period of imprisonment that I

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Wharekura and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 751
Decision Date: 1 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Naya Wharekura was sentenced after being found guilty of the murder of Chad Parekura and the attempted murder of Austin McGregor. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for these offences, taking into account the principles and purposes of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002. Given the nature of the crimes, the court had to consider the gravity of the offending, the degree of culpability, and the circumstances of the offender. The court concluded that a sentence of imprisonment for life was mandatory for the murder charge, with a minimum period of imprisonment to be determined.

The court examined the arguments from both the Crown and the defence regarding the appropriate starting minimum period of imprisonment for the murder charge. The Crown argued for a 14-year minimum period, while the defence suggested 10 years. The court ultimately decided on a 12-year minimum period, considering factors such as the intent behind the stabbings and the use of a knife. The court also added a two-year uplift to account for the attempted murder charge, resulting in a total minimum period of 14 years. However, the court decided to reduce this period by nine months to reflect the offender’s background and substance abuse issues, leading to a final minimum period of 13 years and three months. The court imposed a concurrent sentence of five years and 10 months for the attempted murder charge.

Orders