THE KING v W - [2025] NZHC 1029

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS,

OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2022-254-19

[2025] NZHC 1162

THE KING

v

W

Hearing: 13 May 2025

Counsel:

B D Vanderkolk and A M Barham for Crown N M Graham and M J Phelps for Defendant

Sentence:

13 May 2025

SENTENCING NOTES OF ISAC J

[1] [W], I have to sentence you for the manslaughter of [M].1 I can’t do that quickly or simply. I am going to have to talk about things that you may not understand because they’re technical legal things. The reason I have to do that is because what I am saying needs to be understood and read by other people like the lawyers and other judges.

[2] I’m going to begin by explaining what you did — the reason why we’re all here today. That won’t be easy for you to listen to but you should because it’s important. I’m then going to talk about other cases to help me find the right outcome
— the sentence that I need to impose — for you.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 171 and 160(2)a).

R v W [2025] NZHC 1162 [13 May 2025]

[3] I also want to acknowledge and welcome [M’s] family here today. Nau mai haere mai. I am grateful for the statements that have been read. They were distressing for me to listen to. But I’ve now got a much better sense of the woman who was your mum, your sister and Nan, and the profound loss that you all now feel. She obviously did a lot for young people — trying to raise them and working as a teacher’s aid. So while my focus today has to be on sentencing [W] for what he has done, I have not lost sight of the special person who isn’t here today and the immense sense of mamae that you all feel. Some of the things I’m going to say may be difficult for you to hear as well. I don’t mean to cause you any upset. That’s the last thing that I would want. But it’s part of my job. And as you heard Ms Graham say, this case is a real tragedy for [M], for you, her whānau, and for [W].

The offending

[4] [W] on the evening of 10 December 2020 you were at home with your whāngai grandmother [M]. During the evening she yelled at you. The neighbours could hear what she was saying from inside their house. Two hours later they could still hear [M] shouting.

[5] At about 9.00pm you and your grandmother went to bed. However, later that night you left your bedroom and using a key from inside the house you unlocked a garden shed in the backyard. You took a five-litre fuel canister full of petrol and brought it back inside.

[6]…

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 THE KING v W

Details

AGLC: THE KING v W [2025] NZHC 1162
Case: [2025] NZHC 1029
Decision Date: 13 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the defendant, W, was convicted of manslaughter following an incident where he set fire to a house, resulting in the death of his grandmother, M. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence for W, taking into account his age at the time of the offence, his personal circumstances, and the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case. The legal issues before the court were the appropriate starting point for the sentence, and the extent of the reduction for W’s personal circumstances.

The court began by setting a starting point of five and a half years' imprisonment, considering the premeditation and extent of harm caused by W's actions. The court then applied various mitigating factors, including W's guilty plea, his young age at the time of the offence, and his prospects for rehabilitation. The court found that W had suffered significant adverse childhood experiences, which impacted his culpability and ability to make good decisions. Given these factors, the court reduced the sentence by a total of 58% to arrive at a notional end sentence of 26 months' imprisonment. However, the court ultimately decided on a sentence of home detention for 12 months, with conditions recommended by Corrections, to allow W to continue his education and engage in rehabilitative programs. The court also granted ongoing name suppression for W, considering the adverse impact that loss of name suppression would have on his ongoing development.

The final orders of the court were that W was sentenced to home detention for 12 months on the conditions recommended by Corrections, with ongoing name suppression in place. The court emphasised the importance of W's continued engagement in education and rehabilitation programs, and directed that his sentence should not interfere with these activities.

Orders