Legal Research
Cases
Te Wini v R

Te Wini v R

Case [2013] NZCA 201 4 June 2013

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Mens Rea & Intention

Unconscionable Conduct

Diminished Responsibility

Remorse

Parity

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA489/2012
[2013] NZCA 201

BETWEEN	LORI LEAH TE WINI Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	9 May 2013
Court:	Wild, Chisholm and Keane JJ
Counsel:	C W Stevenson and E A Hall for Appellant M E Ball for Respondent
Judgment:	4 June 2013 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Wild J)

Introduction

Ms Te Wini appeals against a sentence of life imprisonment imposed on her for murder under s 168 of the Crimes Act 1961.[1] In imposing that sentence, Woolford J fixed the non-parole period at the statutory minimum of 10 years. Somewhat obviously, that aspect of the sentence is not directly challenged.
For reasons based firmly on the culpability of Ms Te Wini as the offender, and not at all on the murder she committed, Ms Te Wini’s counsel submit life imprisonment was a manifestly unjust sentence. They seek substitution of a finite sentence of eight to 10 years imprisonment.

Facts

[1]R v Te Wini [2012] NZHC 1593.

On the night of 24–25 November 2008 Ms Te Wini and her 17-year-old cousin, Courtney Churchward, broke into the home of Mr John Rowe in Opotiki. Their intention was to rob him. Mr Rowe was an elderly retired school teacher who lived alone.
While searching through the house, it seems the two young women disturbed Mr Rowe, who was in bed. The sentencing remarks of Woolford J describe what then happened:
[6]       … Fearing the consequences of discovery the two offenders armed themselves with items they found in the sitting room. Ms Churchward handed a long, solid piece of wood, which the victim apparently used as a walking stick, to Ms Te Wini but Ms Te Wini handed this back and instead picked up a thinner piece of wood, more akin to a broom handle. The plan seems to have been to knock the victim out.
[7]       The offenders went into the victim’s bedroom with their weapons but hesitated. They returned to the sitting room where they encouraged themselves to proceed with their plan. They then re-entered the victim’s darkened bedroom.
[8]       Ms Churchward struck a number of blows to the victim’s head, chest and arms. After that Ms Te Wini joined in and struck the victim several times. Ms Te Wini’s weapon was broken during the assault, although it is unclear whether it was due to the force employed or through contact with the weapon wielded by Ms Churchward.
[9]       Exactly how long the attack took or how many blows were struck is not clear but after a short time it seems that the victim, who had tried at one point to raise himself up, fell back onto the pillows and became still. The offenders then dropped their weapons and left the victim in his bed.
[10]     They then searched the house and found the victim’s wallet and his car keys. They also ransacked the house…

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 Te Wini v R

Details

AGLC: Te Wini v R [2013] NZCA 201
Case: [2013] NZCA 201
Decision Date: 4 June 2013 at 11 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lori Leah Te Wini appeals against her sentence of life imprisonment for murder under s 168 of the Crimes Act 1961. Te Wini and her cousin, Courtney Churchward, were convicted of murdering Mr John Rowe in a home invasion robbery in Opotiki. Te Wini's counsel submits that her sentence is manifestly unjust, and she should be given a finite sentence of eight to 10 years imprisonment. Te Wini's appeal against her conviction was allowed and a retrial ordered. The court considered the appeal against sentence in light of the settled jurisprudence on the meaning of "manifestly unjust" in s 102 of the Sentencing Act 2002. The court concluded that the circumstances of the offence and the offender did not make the sentence of life imprisonment manifestly unjust. Te Wini's age, psychiatric condition, and lesser role in the offending were considered as mitigating factors. However, the premeditated brutality of the murder and Te Wini's active participation in the crime meant that a life sentence was appropriate. The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Orders