Wheeler v The King - [2024] NZSC 73

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 141/2023
[2024] NZSC 73

BETWEEN	JOSEPH KARAITIANA WHEELER Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Williams and Kós JJ
Counsel:	D A Ewen and E T Blincoe for Applicant M J Lillico and Z Zhang for Respondent
Judgment:	27 June 2024

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant, Joseph Wheeler, stabbed and killed Richard Wallace, who owed him a small drug debt. He pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 10 years.[1] His sentence appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed[2] and he now seeks leave to bring a further appeal to this Court. He seeks a determinate sentence rather than a life sentence. He argues that a life sentence is manifestly unjust because of the statutory requirement to impose an MPI of not less than 10 years when a life sentence is imposed.[3]

High Court

[1]R v Wheeler [2022] NZHC 2151 (Ellis J) [HC judgment] at [35].

[2]Wheeler v R [2023] NZCA 563 (Mallon, Moore and Palmer JJ) [CA judgment] at [44].

[3]Sentencing Act 2002, s 103.

In the High Court, Ellis J adopted a starting point of life imprisonment with an MPI of 11 years.[4] The Judge reduced the MPI to the statutory minimum of 10 years on the basis of mitigating circumstances.[5] Ellis J accepted that had this been a case where the Court was to determine the appropriate determinate sentence, Mr Wheeler’s personal circumstances would have warranted greater discounts than possible with the 10-year minimum.[6]
[4]HC judgment, above n 1, at [13].
[5]At [34]–[35].
[6]At [33].
The mitigating circumstances were, in essence, Mr Wheeler’s life story. He claims he was conceived as a result of the rape of his biological mother and became a ward of the state, cycling through different foster families until he was adopted at two and a half years old. He reported being physically abused by his adoptive father. When he was nine, Mr Wheeler was placed in an institution then known as a “Boys’ Home”, where he says he was subjected to physical abuse. He matured into a life of polysubstance abuse and offending, including violent offending. He has also been admitted to hospital on multiple occasions, with mental health‑related presentations. He has longstanding difficulties with managing his emotions, leading to periods of depressed mood as well as periods of intense rage.
Mr Wheeler admitted he was in just such an enraged state when he killed Mr Wallace. He went to the police not long after the killing and admitted to his offending. The Courts below agreed that he was genuinely remorseful.[7]

Court of Appeal

[7]At [9]; and CA judgment, above n 2, at [40].

The Court of Appeal upheld Ellis J’s sentencing decision.[8] In doing so it addressed two issues raised by Mr Wheeler.
[8]CA judgment, above n 2, at [41].
First,…

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 Wheeler v The King

Details

AGLC: Wheeler v The King [2024] NZSC 73
Case: [2024] NZSC 73
Decision Date: 27 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Joseph Karaitiana Wheeler sought leave to appeal against his life imprisonment sentence, which included a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 10 years, imposed for the murder of Richard Wallace. The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed his appeal. The central issue in this appeal was whether the MPI requirement rendered Wheeler's life sentence manifestly unjust. The Court needed to determine if the statutory MPI of 10 years, when combined with a life sentence, constituted a manifest injustice, making the sentence inappropriate.

The Court of Appeal had thoroughly examined Wheeler's arguments, considering both the circumstances of the offence and his personal background. They held that despite Wheeler's compelling mitigating factors, the brutal nature of the crime and the ongoing risk he posed to the community warranted a life sentence. The Court concluded that the mandatory MPI did not make the sentence manifestly unjust in Wheeler's case. The Supreme Court, in turn, found that the Court of Appeal's reasoning was sound and that the application did not present a question of general or public importance, nor did it show sufficient merit to warrant leave to appeal. The application was dismissed.

The final orders of the Court were that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court did not find the appeal to be of sufficient merit to warrant further consideration, and thus Wheeler's sentence stood as determined by the Court of Appeal.

Orders