R v Winders - [2016] NZHC 2964

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2015-043-1723 [2016] NZHC 2964

THE QUEEN

v

QUINTON PAUL WINDERS

Hearing: 9 December 2016

Appearances:

AJ Gordon for Crown
JP Temm and K Patterson for Prisoner

Sentence:

9 December 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF TOOGOOD J

R v Winders [2016] NZHC 2964 [9 December 2016]

Background

[1] Quinton Paul Winders, you appear for sentence for the murder of Mr George Taiaroa at Atiamuri on 19 March 2013 after a jury properly found you guilty of that charge on 9 September 2016.

[2] Your counsel, Mr Temm, accepts that I must sentence you to life imprisonment.1 What I must decide today is how long you should remain in prison before you are eligible to be released on parole. Regrettably, your sentencing has been delayed by the need for me to obtain a further report from a psychologist. I am sorry you have had to wait so long until now to know what non-parole period will be imposed.

The facts I find to have been proved

[3] The identity of the offender was the single issue at your trial. You denied, and continue to deny, that you were Mr Taiaroa’s killer.2 The jury's verdict means that they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you were, and I agree with them.

[4] It is not possible to infer from the verdict what conclusions of fact were drawn by the jury in coming to their verdict but, as sentencing Judge, I am required to determine, consistently with the verdict, the relevant facts which I find to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.3 My findings will inform my decision as to the non-parole period, so I need to explain them in some detail.

[5] The jury’s verdict means that, at approximately 3.15 pm on Tuesday,

19 March 2013, at Atiamuri, you were guilty of the cold-blooded and calculated killing of Mr George Taiaroa, a virtual stranger, by shooting him in the head at point- blank range with a .22 calibre rifle. It was an entirely unprovoked attack on an
unsuspecting man.

1      Sentencing Act 2002, s 102(1).
2      Recorded in the Provision of Advice to the Court by Probation Officer LK Judd, dated
25 October 2016; in Dr Peter Dean’s report dated 27 October 2016; in Renata Bellve-Wack’s
report of 7 December 2016 and Mr Temm’s submissions dated 7 December 2016.
3      Sentencing Act, s 24; R v Heti (1992) 8 CRNZ 554 (CA).

[6] The facts leading to that conclusion which I find to be proved beyond reasonable doubt are these:

(a) On 12 March 2013, you were a passenger in your father's Landrover which was involved in a minor collision near roadworks at Atiamuri. Mr Taiaroa was in position as the operator of a Stop/Go sign at the roadworks. As a result of Mr Taiaroa having signalled late to your father that he should stop his vehicle to make way for oncoming traffic, your father was required to stop and reverse his vehicle. The trailer…

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 Winders

Details

AGLC: R v Winders [2016] NZHC 2964
Case: [2016] NZHC 2964
Decision Date: 9 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Quinton Paul Winders was sentenced for the murder of Mr George Taiaroa, which occurred on 19 March 2013 at Atiamuri. The court had to determine the appropriate non-parole period for Winders' life imprisonment. The central legal issue was whether the statutory minimum of 17 years' imprisonment was warranted given the nature of the crime, including its premeditation, the vulnerability of the victim, and the use of a firearm.

The court found that Winders' actions demonstrated a degree of planning and calculation, including removing his vehicle's number plates to avoid detection and altering the vehicle's appearance post-crime. The court also considered the severe impact of the crime on Mr Taiaroa's family and the broader community. Despite Winders' lack of a prior criminal record and absence of psychiatric conditions, the court noted his propensity for overreacting violently, particularly with firearms. The court concluded that a 17-year minimum period was necessary to appropriately denounce the crime and protect the community, notwithstanding the unlawful arrest by police.

The court imposed a minimum term of 17 years' imprisonment, emphasizing that parole eligibility was contingent upon the Parole Board's assessment of Winders' risk to society. The court also ordered the confiscation of Winders' vehicle used in the crime, pending any further legal proceedings.

Orders