The King v W - [2025] NZHC 1162

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 1162
Decision Date: 13 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the High Court of New Zealand involved the sentencing of W, who had been charged with manslaughter following the death of M. W had set fire to the house in which he was living with M, resulting in her death. W had been 12 years old at the time of the incident, and had endured a traumatic childhood prior to the offence. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence for W, taking into account his age, the circumstances of the offence, and his personal background. The legal issues centred on the appropriate starting point for sentencing and the extent of any mitigating factors to be considered. The court compared W's case to other cases of arson and manslaughter, and decided on a starting point of five and a half years' imprisonment. The court then considered mitigating factors, including W's age, the impact of his childhood experiences, and his prospects for rehabilitation. The court decided on a reduction of 35% to the starting point, resulting in a sentence of 12 months' home detention. The court also granted ongoing name suppression for W. The final orders included a sentence of 12 months' home detention for W, with the conditions recommended by Corrections, and ongoing name suppression.

Orders