The Queen v Namana - [2000] NZCA 348

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA 335/00

THE QUEEN

CARLOS NAMANA

Hearing:	18 October 2000
Coram:	Gault J Thomas J Keith J
Appearances:	P G Mabey QC for Appellant
N M Crutchley for Crown
Judgment:	27 November 2000

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THOMAS J

The question on appeal

The question before the Court is whether the imposition of a minimum period of 18 years imprisonment pursuant to s 80 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 in respect of an offender who pleaded guilty to a brutal murder of a policeman is justified having regard to the circumstances of the case, including those of the offender.

The statutory provisions

For the purpose of the appeal, the pertinent subsections in s 80 may be repeated:
…
(2)The court may impose a minimum period of imprisonment under subsection (1) if satisfied that the circumstances of the offence are sufficiently serious to justify a minimum period of imprisonment of more than 10 years.
…
(3)Where the court imposes a minimum period of imprisonment under subsection (1) of this section, the duration of the period imposed shall be the minimum period that the court considers to be justified having regard to the circumstances of the case, including those of the offender.
…
(5A) For the purposes of this section, the circumstances of an offence may be regarded as sufficiently serious if the court is satisfied that the circumstances take the offence out of the ordinary range of offending of the particular kind, but the circumstances need not be exceptional.
…
(7)Where the court makes an order under this section, it shall give the offender written reasons for so doing and the offender may appeal against the imposition of the minimum period of imprisonment in the same manner as he or she may appeal upon conviction against the sentence or sentences imposed.

The facts

The facts are fully set out in the sentencing notes of Nicholson J, the sentencing Judge, in the High Court.
At about 10 p.m. on Wednesday 26 May 1999 the appellant, Mr Namana, broke into a café in Mangakino by breaking the shop window. He stole some small confectionery. A witness who lived across the road saw what was happening and telephoned the Police. Constable Stretch, the deceased, was the only Police Officer in Mangakino that night. He was at home. Informed of the burglary, he put his uniform on and drove to the scene in a marked Police utility truck. He saw Mr Namana in the hospital grounds across the road from the café. After telling Police Communications by radio of his intention, Constable Stretch approached Mr Namana on foot. Mr Namana was kneeling down picking up some of the stolen confectionery which he had dropped. He sought to escape. Constable Stretch ran after him and tackled him. Both fell to the ground. As they got up Constable Stretch grabbed Mr Namana’s arm. Mr Namana punched him. Constable Stretch then hit Mr Namana with his…

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 Queen v Namana

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Namana [2000] NZCA 348
Case: [2000] NZCA 348
Decision Date: 27 November 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in The Queen v Namana before the Court of Appeal of New Zealand concerned the imposition of a minimum period of 18 years imprisonment on Carlos Namana, who had pleaded guilty to the brutal murder of a police officer. The court was tasked with determining whether the severity of the sentence was justified given the circumstances of the case and the offender. The statutory framework under which the sentence was imposed was the Criminal Justice Act 1985, specifically section 80, which allows for a minimum period of imprisonment exceeding ten years if the circumstances of the offence are deemed sufficiently serious.

The central issue before the court was whether the circumstances of the offence were sufficiently serious to warrant the imposition of a minimum period of imprisonment exceeding ten years. The court found that the circumstances were indeed sufficiently serious, considering the extreme brutality of the attack and the fact that the victim was a police officer carrying out his duties. The court also considered the offender's extensive criminal history, including previous violent offences and anti-police behaviour, as well as the lack of genuine remorse shown by the offender.

Furthermore, the court addressed the appropriate duration of the minimum period of imprisonment. While acknowledging the brutality and the need for strong denunciation and deterrence, the court noted that the offender's early plea of guilty should result in a reduction of the sentence. The court decided that a reduction of two years was appropriate, given the public interest in encouraging pleas of guilty and the avoidance of a lengthy trial for the victim's family and witnesses. Consequently, the court reduced the minimum period of imprisonment from 18 years to 16 years.

Orders