R v Wira - [2025] NZHC 3148

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2024-029-181

[2025] NZHC 3148

THE KING

V

ABEL JAYE WIRA

Counsel: R Annandale and D Soich for Crown A Fairley and C Taylor for Defendant

Sentence:

17 October 2025

SENTENCING NOTES OF BECROFT J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Marsden Woods Inskip Smith, Whangarei Thomson Wilson, Whangarei

R v WIRA [2025] NZHC 3148 [17 October 2025]

The charge

[1] Mr Abel Jaye Wira, now at the age of 60, you appear for sentence having been found guilty by a jury on one charge of manslaughter.1

[2] The penalty for manslaughter ranges from low community-based sentences through to a maximum of life imprisonment. The Crown advises that this is the first case ever in New Zealand of manslaughter arising from a dog mauling attack.

[3] It is appropriate for me to acknowledge from the outset that the life of Mr Neville Thomson has been lost. And to acknowledge his family and their loss. There is nothing this Court can do to make up for your loss and no numerical value can be ascribed to a man’s life.

Facts

[4] I turn to the facts. On the morning of 4 August 2022, at [redacted] Puketawa Road, near Panguru in Northland, Mr Neville Thomson aged 69 was mauled to death by a pack of dangerous dogs which you owned. This is how it happened.

[5] Mr Thomson lived alone at the isolated, rural property. In June 2022, he invited you to “house sit” while he visited his father in Oamaru. You brought with you your dogs which I understand to be largely bullmastiff crossbreeds. Other witnesses referred to them as “mongrels”.

[6] You had six adult dogs (including a nine, four, three and two-year-old). At the time of the incident, one of your female dogs had recently birthed 10 puppies and there were seven more puppies a month or two old. You then were in control of up to 23 dogs.

[7] The property is in a very isolated part of Northland, accessed by a gated, long metal driveway. There are at least two structures—first a house which was then in poor condition. And behind the house was a dilapidated and poorly maintained

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 171 and 177. Maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

caravan. The caravan windows were held together by duct tape. The door had no handle or locking mechanism.

[8] While Mr Thomson was away visiting his father, you and your dogs lived in the house and/or in the caravan.

[9] When Mr Thomson came back in early July, you continued to live with him, and you slept in the caravan. Mr Thomson also owned a couple of dogs which he had taken away with him. He brought them back; they were well behaved; and they lived in the house with him.

[10] Your dogs however were known to be dangerous. You clearly knew that. Several witnesses’ evidence, obviously accepted by the jury, made that…

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 Wira

Details

AGLC: R v Wira [2025] NZHC 3148
Case: [2025] NZHC 3148
Decision Date: 17 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Abel Jaye Wira was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand following his conviction for manslaughter by the jury. The charge arose from the death of Mr Neville Thomson, who was mauled to death by a pack of dangerous dogs owned by Wira. The court acknowledged the loss of Mr Thomson's life and the impact on his family. The key legal issues involved determining Wira's culpability for failing to take reasonable care in controlling his dangerous dogs and assessing the appropriate starting point for sentencing. The court found Wira grossly negligent in his care of the dogs, which were known to be dangerous and had previously attacked both Wira and other animals. The court emphasized the legal duty of dog owners to prevent their animals from endangering human life, rejecting Wira's argument that the incident was a tragic accident. The court concluded that the appropriate starting point for sentencing was four years' imprisonment, taking into account the severity of Wira's breach of duty and the pattern of his neglectful behavior. After considering mitigating factors such as Wira's genuine remorse and his challenging background, the court imposed a final sentence of three and a half years' imprisonment.

Orders