Sentencing W2

In 2022 how many females vs male charged with murder

12 females, compared to 52 males

How many females vs males convicted of murder

7 females, 22 males

Of those charged with murder what were their ethnicities

21 European, 29 Māori, 7 Pasifika

Of those convicted in 2022 what were their ages

3 under 19; 10 ages 20-29; 8 aged 30-39

Presumption of life imprisonment for murder - Crimes Act

Crimes Act s172 - everyone who commits murder SHALL upon conviction thereof be sentences for imprisonment for life

(1) Every one who commits murder is liable to imprisonment for life

Presumption of life imprisonment for murder- Sentencing ACT

S102 (1) An offender who is convicted of murder must be sentenced to imprisonment for life unless, given the circumstances of the offence and the offender, a sentence of imprisonment for life would be manifestly unjust

Malik v R [2015] NZCA

Killed wife & daughter.

had mental health issues, appealing MPI 18yrs

• This case shows a strong presumption of life imprisonment, reflecting the sanctity of life and the community’s abhorrence of the crime

R v Nelson [2012] NZHC

Young person (13/14 years old) who had an abusive life. Was taken in by grandmother and killed her. When given the background of the offence the jury was uncomfortable with idea of putting defendant in prison for the rest of their life. Was found to be manifestly unjust.

Dickey v R [2023] NZCA

3 people under 19 convicted of murder; life imprisonment min 10 years. Challenged on the basis that it would be manifestly unjust to give life imprisonment to someone that young. Argument that until people are 25 they don’t have the ability to understand consequences. Found to be manifestly unjust.

Van Hemert [2023] NZSC - on manifestly unjust

‘manifestly’ means simply that the injustice in imposing life imprisonment must be clear. That assessment … is still made against the purposes and principles of sentencing in the Act.

R v Dickason

Killed 3 Children - even though jury found infanticide and insanity not met judge found it would be inappropriate to sentence her with life imprisonment

Life Sentence and Parole

A Sentence of life does not mean that parole is not available. S103 of Sentencing Act states “if a person sentences an offender convicted of murder to imprisonment for life, it must order an Minimum Period of Imprisonment (MPI)” eS

Section 104 Sentencing Act

Court must impose minimum period of 17 years imprisonment in following circumstances

Section 103(2) Sentencing Act

MPI must not be less than 10 years and must satisfy the purpose of: holding D accountable to harm done to V and community, denounce conduct, deterring offender & community from committing offence, protect community

(2)(B) cannot make an order unless 18 years or older

3 Rules for Determining Minimum Period of Imprisonment

Does the offending fit in category for s104 - 17 years MPI

Does offending fit within MPI of s103(2)

Does offending fit where no parole

s104 (A)- murder committed in attempt to avoid detection for any offence

R v Kumar - committed assault, to prevent V telling police set fire to him

R v Lundy - Argued he killed daughter because she saw him kill his wife

R v Bell CA - Broke into RSA building to rob, killed people in there, MPI 30yrs

s104(B) - murder involved calculated or lengthy planning, including arrangement where there is money passed

Chow v R - Hired someone to kill wife MPI 17yrs

R v Bouwer CA 2022 - killed wife by poisoning her everyday for 2 months

s104 C) murder involved unlawful entry or presence in dwelling place

If someone murders in home more serious than in public place

104 (d) murder committed in course of another serious offence

R v Kinghorn [2014] NZCA - Runs over woman with car so he can rape her

R v Reid [2009] NZCA - Kills woman while raping her

s104 (e) committed with high level of brutality, cruelty, depravity, or callousness

R v Howse [2003] - killed step daughter who had told people he was sexually abusing her

s104(ea) & (f)

(ea)committed as part of terrorist act

(f) deceased was constable or prison officer in course of his/her duty

s104(h) offender has been convicted of 2 or more counter of murder, whether or not from same circumsances

R v Watson - multiple killings

104(g) deceased was particularly vulnerable because of age, health, or any other factor

R v Little [2007] NZCA - 7 month old baby

Singh v R [2016] - woman had protection order against him and this was breached

R v Tu [2016] - killed someone while asleep

s104(i) any other exceptional circumstance

R v Kumar [2015]

Without parole - R v Tarrant [2020] Mosque Shooting

“I am satisfied that no MPI would be sufficient to satisfy the legitimate need to hold you to account for the harm you have done to the community.” [179]

“If I was to impose a MPI in an endeavour to meet the purposes that I am required to achieve in sentencing you for murdering 51 people, it could not be less than your natural life.” [180]

R v Williams [2005]

Specified minimum term ‘may not be departed from lightly’. The presence of mitigating factors (under s9(2)) would rarely displace the presumption. Legislation’s purpose was to create a regime that confined the discretion of the judges instead of giving them a guideline.