Moko case establishes dangerous precedent - McVicar

28th June 2016

The Founder of the Sensible Sentencing Trust believes the Moko case has established a dangerous precedent for all future murder cases.

Mr McVicar said a close read of the summary of facts and the sentencing notes are not only a grizzly read they set out in considerable detail the difficulties that the Police, the Prosecutors and the Judges are under with existing legislation.

Tania Shailer: http://offenders.sst.org.nz/offender/44684/

David Haerewa: http://offenders.sst.org.nz/offender/67119/

“The Attorney General Chris Finlayson has said that the original murder charges against Shailer and Haerewa were probably replaced with manslaughter charges due to the difficulty of getting a murder conviction.”

“What Mr Finlayson hasn’t been honest enough to say is that the government he is part of [along with previous governments] have introduced the legislation that has not only created the problem but is now compounding it.”

“While the Sensible Sentencing Trust applauds the brave decision of Justice Katz to give what is believed to be the longest sentence for manslaughter of a child ever handed down in New Zealand to the killers of Moko Rangitoheriri – 17 years with a minimum non parole period of nine years for both offenders. In handing down this sentence, her Honour has undoubtedly exposed herself to an appeal, which sadly we believe is likely to be successful.”

“Now that all the facts are known, Sensible Sentencing remains of the view that a juryought to have been entrusted with the task of deciding whether Moko’s killers were guilty of murder or manslaughter.”

“In our view, Finlayson’s so called explanation begs more questions than it answers, and arguably tries to mislead the public, particularly on the question of intent. Finlayson refers to difficulties in establishing ‘murderous intent’ when he well knows that murder can be the verdict where, as in this case, life threatening injuries were inflicted on a victim, and the killers were reckless as to whether death resulted from those injuries” McVicar said.

“The agreed statement of facts confirms that at least one defendant – Haerewa – knew that he had killed Moko by the injuries which were inflicted. Given that the Judge found as a fact that both killers were engaged in a joint enterprise, and were both nearly equally culpable, Haerewa’s intent also tainted Shailer”

“Also not addressed in Finlayson’s self-serving ‘explanation’ was why, if there were all the difficulties he claimed in securing a murder conviction, charges of murder were laid in the first place. The Crown Solicitor at Rotorua is a highly experienced prosecutor. Why would she lay charges of murder if there were fundamental problems with obtaining a conviction on them? Is Finlayson suggesting she was incompetent, and the charges should never have been laid in the first place?”

“The overarching supposed reason for the murder charges being withdrawn and replaced by charges of manslaughter is that Shailer and Haewera could otherwise have possibly walked free.

“We see that notion as a grave insult to the good people of Rotorua – 500 of whom marched yesterday demanding justice for Moko. We simply do not accept that a jury in possession of all the facts, and having been properly instructed on the law by a High Court Judge, would have let either of these two creatures walk free from the court.”

“Although Justice Katz did the very best she could, Moko Rangitoheriri has not received justice and neither has the New Zealand public. His killers received about half the sentence they would have received had they been convicted of murder. Aggravated murder attracts a minimum non parole period of at least 17 years. If these sentences survive an appeal – and that is far from certain - these two will be eligible for parole in half that time. That is simply wrong.”

ENDS

© Scoop Media