IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CRI-2012-055-04249
CRI-2013-055-00700
[2014] NZHC 65
THE QUEEN
v
PARAIRE HORI TAMA WEHI TE AWA
DEAN MICHAEL ADDISON
Hearing:
5 February 2014
Appearances:
K Raftery and A Pollett for Crown
PJ Kaye for Te Awa
M Ryan and B Meyer for Addison
Sentence:
5 February 2014
SENTENCING NOTES OF TOOGOOD J
R v TE AWA & ADDISON [2014] NZHC 65 [5 February 2014]
[1]
Paraire Hori Tama Wehi Te Awa, you appear for sentence having been
convicted by a jury of kidnapping and murder. Dean Michael Addison, you are for
sentence for kidnapping and also on one count of supplying methamphetamine and
also on one count of possessing pseudoephedrine for the purpose of manufacture.
Background facts
Dean Addison
[2]
In June 2012, Mr Addison, you were dealing at and just above street level in
methamphetamine. I am satisfied that your conviction by the jury on the count of
supplying methamphetamine was genuinely representative of significant dealing
activity. It is clear from the text messages involving you that you were dealing in
drugs, and by that I mean drugs like methamphetamine and pseudoephedrine, on a
regular basis. That was confirmed by the Crown’s principal witness, Mr Rigby, who
was your runner. Other witnesses gave evidence of the many people who called at
your work place in Papakura to purchase methamphetamine. I consider it well
established, therefore, that you were dealing commercially in methamphetamine,
albeit at a retail rather than wholesale level.
[3]
I am satisfied also that you were involved in receiving pseudoephedrine for
manufacture and that the one incident of possession relied upon by the Crown was
not an isolated incident. As Mr Raftery submitted to the jury at the time of your trial,
the evidence established that you were in possession of pseudoephedrine on at least
two other occasions in June and July 2012.
[4]
strife.
As is so often the case, however, your drug dealing got you into financial
You had received from your wife’s best friend, Rae Portman, a set of
ContacNT containing pseudoephedrine valued at $9,000. It was intended by
Ms Portman
and
you
that
the
pseudoephedrine
would
be
turned
into
methamphetamine from which Ms Portman was due to receive $14,000, thereby
giving her a profit of $5,000. No doubt you would have benefited also in the
transaction, probably by receiving a quantity of methamphetamine which you could
then sell.
[5]
For reasons which were not disclosed at your trial, Ms Portman began
pressuring you, on 16 June 2012, to either return the pseudoephedrine to her or pay
her the $14,000 she was expecting to receive. I should say at this point that I
disregard for the purposes of sentencing Mr Te Awa, the suggestion in your presentence report that you had in fact given the drugs to him. You did not have the
drugs or the money, and the text messages between your wife and you provided clear
evidence of the extreme pressure Ms Portman’s demands put you under. No doubt
she also was under considerable pressure from associates who expected to benefit in
the transaction.
[6]
Your response to the pressure was, first, to attempt avoid contact with
Ms Portman and then by 20 June to engage Mr Te Awa to teach her a lesson. The
evidence went no further than establishing that you had arranged for Ms Portman to
be kidnapped and taken to a remote area where she was to be released to find her
way home. I am required to sentence you on that basis.
Paraire Te Awa
[7]
Mr Te Awa, I accept that there was no evidence at trial that you were directly
involved in handling illegal drugs, apart from being a user of methamphetamine and
cannabis. I am satisfied from the evidence, however, that you supported Mr Addison
in his drug dealing by threatened and inflicted violence on others when called upon.
I accept the evidence of Lee Rigby that you issued a serious threat to him which
ensured his participation in the kidnapping. Your subsequent actions in relation to
Ms Portman proved that you had both the means and the intention to carry out any
such threat so far as Mr Rigby was concerned.
[8]
You carried out Mr Addison’s instructions to kidnap Ms Portman with
ruthless efficiency. She was a slightly built 32-year-old who was four months’
pregnant.
You bound her hands and ankles tightly together behind her with
insulation tape, in a manner which the pathologist described as “hog-tied”. You also
wound tape tightly around her head covering her mouth. You then placed a drop
sheet around her head and taped that into place also.
[9]
With Mr Rigby’s assistance, you placed Ms Portman into the back of her
Mazda Astina. You then ensured that she was transported to the Waikato, in a small
space between the upright back seat and the rear hatch in a concertinaed position.
The pathologist described how the confined space, the bent position of the body, the
pregnancy, the sheet over her head, and the gag across her mouth would have
combined to make breathing difficult for Ms Portman. Added to those factors, the
fear and stress she must have suffered over the last five hours of her life would have
been unbearable, particularly at times when you stopped on the journey and she
would have been apprehensive as to what was to happen to her and her unborn baby.
During at least one of these stops, you handled her roughly, pushing her back down
into the car when she was crying and struggling to sit up.
[10]
I am satisfied on the evidence that you planned to kill Ms Portman from the
time you bound and gagged and covered her in the drop sheet at Markedo Place,
Papakura. Had it been your intention at that time merely to abduct her and release
her in a remote area, “as a lesson to her”, it would not have been necessary for you to
go to such extremes. I accept Mr Rigby’s evidence that on several occasions during
the journey from Auckland to the Waikato, you assured Ms Portman she should not
worry and that it would all be over soon. You were not telling her that that she
would soon be released; the evidence that you obtained an axe from the Reids’
property at Ngaruawahia which you visited shortly before the murder helped to
prove that you planned to kill her. There was no evidence during the trial of any
event that might have caused you to change an initial plan of simple kidnapping to
one of murder.
[11]
I also accept as true Mr Rigby’s evidence that you directed him to take
Ms Portman to a remote spot; that you pulled Ms Portman up into a sitting position
in the back of the car, placed a motorcycle strop around her neck and, using a car
door handle to twist the noose, garrotted her to death. Afterwards, you showed no
emotion.
[12]
Mr Rigby’s description of the methodical, unemotional and determined way
in which you ended Ms Portman’s life was chilling.
[13]
You then instructed Mr Rigby to transport Ms Portman’s body back to
Ngaruawahia where it was left for several hours while you both returned to
Auckland. I am satisfied that you returned to Ngaruawahia later that day, transferred
Ms Portman’s body from the Mazda into your own vehicle, and then transported her
to a farm near Clevedon where you concealed her body in other fabric and a blue
synthetic pool liner. The body was then left there for several days – seen on one
occasion by Mr Drawbridge - until you ultimately buried it in a farm pit, covered
with rubbish bags. It remained there undiscovered for more than three months.
Purposes and principles of sentencing
[14]
In determining the appropriate sentences I keep in mind the purposes and
principles of sentencing prescribed by Parliament.1
[15]
The purposes of particular relevance to this case are: holding you both
accountable for the harm done to your victims and to the community; promoting in
you a sense of responsibility for, and an acknowledgment of, that harm; denouncing
your conduct; deterring others from similar offending; and, especially in your case
Mr Te Awa, protecting the community from you.
[16]
The principles that to my mind are most relevant are the need to take into
account the gravity of this offending and the degree of culpability of each of you; the
seriousness of the type of offending involved; recognition of the maximum penalties
prescribed for these offences; and, as urged by defence counsel, particularly
Mr Kaye, the obligation to impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in
the circumstances. There are always victims in cases of drug dealing but in respect
of the kidnapping and murder I am bound particularly to take into account the effect
of your offending on others.
[17]
I accept that Ms Portman did not suffer any violent injury during the
kidnapping but she was forced to endure a terrifying ordeal over several hours. She
and her unborn child lost their lives at your hands Mr Te Awa, but they were not the
only victims in this case.
1
Sentencing Act 2002, ss 7 and 8.
Victim impact statement
[18]
You have heard the victim impact statement read by Ms Portman’s mother,
Rebecca Norton. She spoke of the terrible pain your offending has caused her,
Mr Te Awa. You deprived her of her only daughter – and of her first grandchild –
and she did not know what had happened to Rae for over three months because you
concealed your crime. And you concealed it also, Mr Addison, once you became
aware of what had happened. Ms Norton said she felt violated by your presence in
her home at the time of Rae’s funeral when she later discovered you played a part in
the events leading to her daughter’s death. Ms Norton says the task of delivering the
news of her daughter’s murder to the rest of her family, particularly Ms Portman’s
elderly grandmother, was the hardest thing she had ever had to do. She has suffered
from post-traumatic stress and needs medication to sleep.
She says her
psychological difficulties led to her losing her job, causing her financial stress.
[19]
I have also received a victim impact statement from Mr Portman, Rae’s
father. He also has suffered severe depression and loss of confidence as a result of
his daughter’s death, and has suffered emotionally in other ways. He describes also
the devastating emotional effect on the whole family including Rae’s siblings. Both
Mr Portman and Ms Norton describe Rae in glowing terms, mindful of her
weaknesses. Notwithstanding her failings they talk about her as having a bubbly
magnetic personally and it is clear that the entire family has been shattered by the
senseless loss of her life.
Personal circumstances
Dean Addison
[20]
Mr Addison, you are 36 years old. For present purposes, I disregard your
previous history of minor offending but you certainly have no good character which
needs to be taken into account here. At the time of these offences you were living in
Papakura with your wife of eight years and you say you still have her support. You
have a teenage son from a previous relationship.
You have reported a stable
employment history throughout your adult life, first in landscaping and for the last
nine years as a high-pressure hydraulics engineer. You started your own company
four years ago.
[21]
But you have been assessed as having a very harmful pattern of drug abuse.
You have admitted that over the period of your offending you were smoking
cannabis daily and methamphetamine two or three times a week, but you claim that
you are a social user rather than an addict.
[22]
You continue to distance yourself from your role in what happened to
Ms Portman, blaming Mr Rigby for “pinning” this on you. The report writer says
there is a low likelihood of your reoffending, but this assessment is conditional on
your addressing your drug abuse, which you are said to be motivated to do.
Paraire Te Awa
[23]
Mr Te Awa, you are 33 years old. You have many previous convictions
including several for sexual offences involving minors, but only one other conviction
for violence, for which you received a sentence of 23 months’ imprisonment in
July 2013.
[24]
You refused to take part in the pre-sentence report process for this sentencing,
including refusing to co-operate with a psychologist who had been asked to prepare a
report. However, I have read the pre-sentence report prepared in June last year in
respect of your convictions for assault and burglary. It says you were not remorseful
about those offences either, but you claimed not to be a violent person. You had the
support of your partner and your mother, and are reported to be polite and engaged
with the interview process. Nevertheless, you were assessed as presenting a high
risk of reoffending, although I notice a medium risk of violent reoffending, largely
due to your criminal history which demonstrated a disregard for the law. Your
conviction on these charges reinforces the validity of that assessment that you do
present a high risk of reoffending.
[25]
Your refusal to acknowledge your guilt in the face of what I consider to be
overwhelming evidence demonstrates your detachment from reality and a disturbing
lack of humanity. The unemotional way in which you strangled Ms Portman, and the
evidence that shortly after the murder you appeared in a calm and relaxed state,
when compared with the appearance of nervousness prior to the murder, all suggest a
considerable disassociation from the reality of taking the life of another person. For
these reasons, I consider you to be extremely dangerous.
Dean Addison
Kidnapping
[26]
I now come to determining the appropriate sentences for you first,
Mr Addison. I deal with the kidnapping which I take as the lead offence.
The Crown points to the following aggravating features of your offending:
[27]
threatened violence, implicit in the nature of the kidnapping and in your instructions
to Mr Te Awa to teach Ms Portman a lesson; premeditation; the five-hour duration of
the detention; the involvement of more than one offender; and the devastating impact
of the offending on Ms Portman’s family.
[28]
In the District Court, in sentencing your co-offender Lee Rigby for his part in
the kidnapping, Judge Moses adopted a starting point of seven years’ imprisonment
having regard to sentences imposed in similar cases, the circumstances of the
kidnapping in this case, and the part played by Mr Rigby. The Judge took into
account that Mr Rigby was actually involved in placing Ms Portman in the car and
transporting her, but also that he was under some duress as a result of Mr Te Awa’s
threats.
[29]
The Crown points to your failure to acknowledge your guilt and the absence
of any remorse.
You hindered the Police investigation into Ms Portman’s
disappearance by providing false information to them. It is said that a sentence of
nine years’ imprisonment is required to properly reflect your role in the kidnapping
and the Crown seeks a minimum period of imprisonment of 50 per cent of the end
sentence.2
2
Sentencing Act, s 86(2).
[30]
Mr Ryan argues on your behalf that the appropriate starting point is seven
years’ imprisonment, the same as for Mr Rigby, applying the principle of parity in
sentencing even though he submits that you are in fact less culpable than Mr Rigby.
He first submitted that this should be imposed concurrently with a term of three
years’ imprisonment for the drugs charges and submits that there is no need for a
minimum period of imprisonment.
[31]
Because the circumstances of kidnappings are so varied,3 Mr Addison, there
is no guideline judgment to help me determine what your kidnapping sentence
should be.
It is also necessary to be mindful, in considering the relevance of
sentences imposed in other cases, that many kidnappings involve other serious
offending including murder, as this one does. A less analytical approach to a
kidnapping sentence may have been taken in a case where the court focussed its
attention on a more serious charge as the lead offence.
[32]
The drug-related background to the kidnapping does not excuse or mitigate it
in any way. The nature and degree of the coercion involved; the period of detention;
and Ms Portman’s pregnancy of four months, combine to make this serious
offending of its kind. I consider the starting point of seven years adopted for
Mr Rigby to be more than justified, notwithstanding that he was acting under a
degree of coercion.
[33]
The law does not make you less culpable or blameworthy than Mr Te Awa
and Mr Rigby, just because you were not physically involved in the kidnapping, so I
take a starting point of seven years, which may be considered to be towards the
bottom of the available range in these circumstances.
[34]
There are aggravating factors related to your involvement.
I accept the
Crown’s submission that you instigated the kidnapping for the purpose of teaching
Ms Portman a lesson by causing her distress. You exploited your relationships with
both Mr Te Awa and Mr Rigby in engaging them to carry out your plan; you were the
mastermind and in charge. Although I acknowledge that you did not intend Mr
Te Awa to murder Ms Portman, I agree with Judge Moses that without the
3
R v Wharton (2003) 20 CRNZ 109 (CA) at [11].
kidnapping she would not have died; you are responsible for setting the tragic chain
of events in motion.
[35]
Furthermore, it is clear that your wife knew that Ms Portman was pregnant
and I am satisfied because of your close relationship with your wife, and her very
close relationship with Ms Portman, that you also knew. Knowing Ms Portman’s
feisty personality, you must have accepted that Mr Te Awa would be required to use
his considerable size and strength advantage to subdue her. You were present when
Mr Te Awa came to your flat to request duct tape; you can have been under no
illusions about why he wanted it.
[36]
You must have known also that the experience would be extremely
distressing for her; after all, that was the point of what you required Mr Te Awa to
do. In directing Mr Te Awa to kidnap Ms Portman, you put the life of her unborn
child at risk. Your willingness to subject a pregnant woman to this treatment is a
seriously aggravating factor.
[37]
I note also your conduct after Ms Portman’s kidnapping. You have failed to
take responsibility for your actions and, bearing in mind the close relationship your
wife and you had with Ms Portman, your lack of remorse borders on the callous.
You feigned sympathy for her family during the months when she was missing, and
then acted as a pallbearer at her funeral, concealing the fact that you played a major
role in the events which led to her death.
[38]
I therefore add an uplift of one year to the starting point making the
appropriate end sentence for the kidnapping alone a term of eight years’
imprisonment.
Drug offending
[39]
I need to take account of the totality of your offending. Adopting Mr Ryan’s
initial submission that I should impose concurrent sentences of no more than three
years for the drug convictions would mean that you would escape punishment for
that offending; that would be wrong and I think Mr Ryan was forced to concede that
point.
[40]
The
maximum
sentence
for
supplying
methamphetamine
is
life
imprisonment. You have been convicted of a representative charge. The evidence
gathered by the police on the basis of text message data shows that between 14 June
and 29 July 2012, you conducted 28 drug-dealing transactions. The quantities of
methamphetamine you supplied on each of these occasions ranged from 0.25 of a
gram to a gram, totalling between nine and 10 grams of methamphetamine.
[41]
Applying the guideline judgment for sentencing on methamphetamine
charges,4 that quantity would put you towards the lower end of the range of
sentences for the supply of commercial quantities. The Court of Appeal has stated
that this level of dealing attracts a starting point of between three and nine years’
imprisonment. I am satisfied from the number of transactions that this representative
charge is indicative of more significant dealing activity by you, Mr Addison, so I
assess the appropriate sentence for the methamphetamine dealing, if taken alone, as
being around four years.
[42]
To that, a further uplift should be added for the conviction of possessing a
precursor substance for the manufacture of methamphetamine. That relates to the set
of ContacNT that was at the heart of your dispute with Ms Portman. The quantity of
ContacNT involved in that one transaction could have been used to manufacture
between 45 and 67.5 grams of pure methamphetamine. The evidence showed it was
not an isolated instance of pseudoephedrine dealing. Standing alone, that offending
would have justified up to two years’ imprisonment, so that the drug offending
overall would attract a total sentence of around six years.
The totality approach – final end sentence
[43]
If the sentences for the kidnapping and drug offences were to be served
separately, therefore, you would serve a total of 14 years’ imprisonment. But while
they are separate offences and of a different kind, they are related in both time and
4
R v Fatu [2006] 2 NZLR 72 (CA).
circumstance. Accordingly, I must set an end sentence which is in proportion to the
totality of the offending.
[44]
For that reason, I intend to sentence you on a basis which results in a total
end sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment, and I consider that the most straightforward way to do that is to uplift the sentence on the kidnapping charge and order
that the other sentences shall be served concurrently with it.
Minimum period of imprisonment
[45]
Offenders are normally eligible for parole after serving one-third of their
sentence.5 The Court may impose a minimum period of imprisonment longer than
the usual one-third of sentence, however, if it is satisfied that doing so is necessary to
fulfil the sentencing purposes of holding the offender accountable; denunciation and
deterrence; and community protection.6 Notwithstanding Mr Ryan’s submissions to
the contrary, I consider that, given the seriousness of the kidnapping and the
aggravating factors I have mentioned, possible release after one-third of the overall
sentence would be a clearly inadequate response in the eyes of the community.7
Looking at your overall culpability, particularly in respect of what happened to
Ms Portman and your lack of remorse for your role in it, I am satisfied that your
offending meets this threshold and that a minimum period of imprisonment of six
years – or 50 per cent of the total end sentence – is appropriate. Deciding how much
longer than the minimum period you will actually serve will be a matter for the
Parole Board.
Paraire Te Awa
[46]
I now turn to you, Mr Te Awa. You have been convicted of murder and you
must be sentenced to life imprisonment.8 In terms of this charge, the only question
for me to decide today is the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment you must
serve before you become eligible to be considered for parole.
5
6
7
8
Parole Act 2002, s 84(1).
Sentencing Act, s 86(2).
R v Gordon [2009] NZCA 145 at [15].
Sentencing Act, s 102, unless a life sentence would be manifestly unjust. That is not the case
here.
Minimum period of imprisonment
[47]
I want to make it clear to you and to others that this minimum period of
imprisonment is unlikely to represent the total number of years you will actually
spend in prison; rather, it is the number of years you must serve before release on
parole is even a possibility. You will be released after that minimum period only if
the Parole Board is satisfied that you no longer pose a risk to the community. At the
moment you are clearly a serious threat to the safety of the community – if this does
not change, you will never be released. It is in your hands, Mr Te Awa, as to whether
you are ever released and the first thing you must do is acknowledge what you have
done, accept responsibility for it and get treatment. If you are ever released you are
liable to be recalled to prison at any time if it is believed you have become, once
again, a threat to society.
[48]
In most murder cases, the minimum period of imprisonment will be one of
10 years.9 However, Parliament has decided that the appropriate minimum for some
particularly serious murders is at least 17 years.10 Bearing in mind the factors that
take a murder into this higher level of seriousness, the Crown submits that this is one
such case because it involved calculated planning, including an arrangement for you
to receive Mr Addison’s ute;11 it was committed in the course of another serious
offence, namely Ms Portman’s kidnapping;12 and it was committed with a high level
of brutality, cruelty, depravity or callousness.13
[49]
The Crown points also to the use of a weapon, and by that I mean the door
handle and the strop; a particularly cruel and callous attitude in respect of both the
offending and your victim; the high extent of loss and harm; and premeditation.
Counsel remind me also that you continue to deny your involvement in the offending
and therefore show a complete absence of remorse, and they refer to your criminal
history. The Crown says there are no mitigating factors in respect of the offending or
you personally.
9
10
11
12
13
Sentencing Act, s 103.
Sentencing Act, s 104.
Sentencing Act, s 104(b).
Sentencing Act, s 104(d).
Sentencing Act, s 104(e).
[50]
The Crown submits, therefore, that an appropriate starting point for the
minimum period of imprisonment is 20 years, uplifted to 21 years based on the
aggravating personal circumstances.
[51]
Because you refuse to acknowledge your guilt, you have made it difficult for
Mr Kaye to represent your best interests in this matter. He has done his considerable
best but he knows that I must sentence you on the basis of my view of the facts so far
as they are consistent with the jury’s verdicts, and he has conceded responsibly that a
sentence of life imprisonment for Ms Portman’s murder is inevitable. Mr Kaye
accepts also that I will have little difficulty in finding that a minimum term of more
than 10 years is called for, but he says that the Crown’s suggested minimum sentence
of 21 years is too long, given the principle that the sentence should be the least
restrictive in all the circumstances of the case.14
[52]
Mr Kaye does not dispute the aggravating factors identified by the Crown, or
at least two of them, but he submits that if there was premeditation, it was limited to
a plan between Mr Addison and you to give Ms Portman a fright by leaving her in
the vehicle in an isolated location. Defence counsel also contends that although you
have previous convictions, including for sexual offences involving minors, you do
not have a consistent record for serious violence that would justify an uplift to the
minimum sentence.
Discussion
[53]
I agree that the provisions for an increased minimum period are clearly
engaged, first because you murdered Ms Portman in the course of committing the
serious offence of kidnapping her. Second, while this was not a brutal murder, it was
one committed with a high level of cruelty and callousness, as I have already
discussed.15
[54]
I am not prepared to hold that you were motivated to commit murder by the
fact that you thought killing Ms Portman would see you receive Mr Addison’s utility
14
15
Sentencing Act, s 8(g).
See the discussion of the facts at [8]-[13] above.
vehicle. Although I am satisfied you hinted that to Mr Rigby, the precise nature of
any arrangement between you and Mr Addison concerning the vehicle was not
explored in the evidence, but it is a fact that the vehicle was transferred into your
name very soon after the murder.
[55]
When the trigger factors are present, the only circumstance in which the
Court may decline to impose a 17-year minimum term is where doing so would be
manifestly unjust.16 There are no facts suggesting that that would be the case here
and it is beyond doubt that you should properly spend at least 17 years in prison
without the possibility of parole. In fact, the Court of Appeal has held that where, as
here, more than one of the relevant factors are present, the starting point for the
minimum period of imprisonment should be greater than 17 years.17
[56]
I have considered broadly comparable cases, particularly one18 in which the
victim was hog-tied and left in a shed overnight before being taken to a gully and
murdered with a thistle grubber. That case involved similar factors to those present
here, although in that case the victim was subjected to extreme violence and bled to
death over several minutes.
[57]
While the method of the killing in that case was more brutal, I am required to
take into account as an aggravating factor in any sentencing the extent of any loss,
damage or harm resulting from the offence.19 In this case, although I am unable to
say that you were aware of it at the time, the serious harm caused by your offending
involved ending not one but two lives, including that of an unborn child. Further,
your conduct after the murder – hiding Ms Portman’s body in a rubbish tip in an
attempt to prevent it ever being found – caused great anxiety and distress to her
family and friends over several months.
[58]
Consistently with the approach taken in that other case, I begin on the murder
conviction with a starting point of a minimum period of imprisonment of 20 years. I
increase it by a further year on account of your previous convictions, including for
16
17
18
19
Sentencing Act, s 104.
R v Baker [2007] NZCA 277 at [23].
R v Bracken [2012] NZHC 3158.
Sentencing Act, s 9(1)(d).
serious violent offending, but particularly your complete lack of remorse and refusal
to accept responsibility for those actions. Those latter factors are significant in terms
of the prospect of your rehabilitation and I also take into account the fact that two
lives were lost here.
[59]
In respect of the kidnapping, the Crown submits that you should serve a
concurrent sentence of eight years’ imprisonment. I have adopted starting points of
seven years for your co-offenders. You acted at the request of Mr Addison but you
decided how the kidnapping was to be carried out and that Ms Portman was to be
bound and gagged in the cruel manner I have described. Significantly, you treated
her in that way with the intention of killing her. I consider you to be more culpable
than Mr Addison on the kidnapping charge, and I uplift the sentence from a starting
point of seven years to one of nine years’ imprisonment, to be served concurrently
with the term of life imprisonment.
Sentence
[60]
Will you please both stand.
[61]
Mr Addison, on the count of kidnapping, I sentence you to 12 years’
imprisonment, and I direct that you serve a minimum period of six years on that
count. On the count of supplying methamphetamine, I sentence you to four years’
imprisonment. For possessing a precursor substance I sentence you to two years’
imprisonment. All sentences are to be served concurrently. This means that the
effective end sentence is 12 years’ imprisonment of which you must serve a
minimum period of six years.
[62]
Mr Te Awa, I sentence you to life imprisonment for murder. You are to serve
a minimum period of imprisonment of 21 years. You are also sentenced to nine
years’ imprisonment for kidnapping, to be served concurrently.
[63]
Stand down.
.............................................
Toogood J