Reekers v R - [2011] NZCA 383

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA297/2010
[2011] NZCA 383

BETWEEN JOSEPH MARTIN REEKERS
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

Hearing: 1 August 2011

Court: Ellen France, Heath and Lang JJ

Counsel: H D Lawry for Appellant
A J F Perkins for Respondent

Judgment: 11 August 2011 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Lang J)

Introduction

Mr Reekers pleaded guilty to the murder of Marie Jamieson, who was 23 years of age at the date of her death. On 20 April 2010, Stevens J sentenced him to life imprisonment and ordered him to serve a minimum term of 15 years before being eligible to apply for parole.[1] Mr Reekers appeals against the minimum term of imprisonment that the Judge imposed.

Facts

[1] R v Reekers HC Auckland CRI-2008-029-658, 20 April 2010.

Ms Jamieson was reported missing on Monday 12 February 2001. She had gone out with friends two days earlier, on the evening of Saturday 10 February 2001. Enquiries revealed that she had left a bar in central Auckland at about 8.45 pm with the intention of catching a bus to her home in Avondale. Video surveillance footage then depicted her visiting a liquor store and walking past a petrol station, both on New North Road, Kingsland. She was last seen alive when she walked past the petrol station at 9.17 pm on 10 February 2001.
On 19 February 2001 Ms Jamieson’s naked and decomposing body was discovered at the rear of a factory in Ranui. Female clothing, including a skirt and underwear, was discovered nearby. These were subsequently identified as belonging to Ms Jamieson. The body and clothing had been left in a location that was not readily accessible.
The post-mortem examination revealed that Ms Jamieson had suffered three stab wounds to the chest. When the items of clothing were examined, they were found to contain semen stains from which a DNA profile was obtained.
Ms Jamieson’s murder remained unsolved until 2008. In April 2008, Mr Reekers was convicted of theft. Following his conviction he was served with a suspect compulsion order and required to provide a DNA sample to the police. A DNA profile obtained from this sample matched the profile obtained from the semen staining on Ms Jamieson’s clothing.
Enquiries by the police established that, at the time Ms Jamieson was killed, Mr Reekers had been living in a motor camp in West Auckland. He had also previously worked at the factory behind which Ms Jamieson’s body and clothing had been found.
The Henderson police interviewed Mr Reekers on 23 June 2008. At that time he admitted that he had had contact with Ms Jamieson on New North Road around the time she disappeared. He refused to say anything further, however, and was released. When the police in Kaitaia interviewed him again on 26 June 2008, he declined to make any further statement.
After his arrest Mr Reekers was committed for trial in the High…

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 Reekers v R

Details

AGLC: Reekers v R [2011] NZCA 383
Case: [2011] NZCA 383
Decision Date: 11 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joseph Martin Reekers appealed against the minimum term of imprisonment imposed by Stevens J following his conviction for the murder of Marie Jamieson. Stevens J had sentenced Mr Reekers to life imprisonment and ordered him to serve a minimum term of 15 years before being eligible to apply for parole. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the minimum term was appropriately calculated. The appeal was dismissed.

The Court examined the reasoning behind Stevens J's decision to impose a minimum term of 15 years. The Court concluded that the imposition of a minimum term was appropriate given the brutal nature of the murder and the need to protect the community. The Court considered that the brutal nature of the killing, the callous manner in which the body was disposed of, and the offender's previous convictions were significant factors that warranted a minimum term of more than ten years. The Court further considered that the minimum term needed to act as a deterrent to Mr Reekers and to protect the community for a substantial period. The Court found that the minimum term was within the range available to the Judge and was consistent with the minimum terms of imprisonment imposed in other similar cases. The Court also considered that the discount applied to reflect the offender's guilty plea was appropriate.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the minimum term of 15 years.

Orders