\u201cIt\u2019s a continuous nightmare I can\u2019t wake from,\u201d the woman\u2019s best friend later added through tears, describing having to bury her on what would have been her birthday. \u201cLife has never been the same.\u201d<\/p>\n
Police and forensic teams carry out a scene examination at a property in Massey, West Auckland. Photo \/ Alex Burton<\/p>\n
The victim\u2019s family opposed permanent suppression, as did the media, but prosecutors did not. <\/p>\n
They conceded to the defence argument \u2013 bolstered by a psychological report \u2013 that naming either the convicted murderer or his victim could cause extreme hardship to one of the four children they had together. <\/p>\n
\u2018Volatile\u2019 history<\/p>\n
The jury of 11 men and one woman was told during the trial that the couple had met in high school and had a 27-year history that had, in recent years, involved separation and an on-again, off-again relationship that prosecutors described as \u201ctoxic and volatile\u201d. <\/p>\n
The defendant had previously admitted punching and kicking his partner during a 2020 argument, but Crown prosecutors Fiona Culliney and Ruby van Boheemen alleged that domestic violence was an ongoing theme throughout the final years of their relationship. <\/p>\n
There were repeated reports of violence \u2013 and seemingly just as many retractions from the woman \u2013 which prosecutors described as signs of a woman trapped in an abusive relationship.<\/p>\n
Auckland defence lawyer Ian Brookie. Photo \/ Michael Craig<\/p>\n
Defence lawyer Ian Brookie said the 2020 attack was an isolated incident, in which the woman suffered bruising but not serious injuries. The defendant has continued to deny, since his conviction, that he was responsible for killing the woman. <\/p>\n
Justice Simon Mount agreed that it was proper for jurors to have considered the past reports of violence, but he said the evidence did not rise to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt needed for him to consider them as aggravating factors for sentencing. <\/p>\n
It included a 2019 incident in which a daycare worker described what she thought was an attack in a carpark. However, she acknowledged she hadn\u2019t seen the defendant\u2019s hand make contact with the victim\u2019s face. <\/p>\n
The victim later denied to police that she had been hit but made an ACC claim for a broken tooth, claiming the injury occurred during a fall on the same day. <\/p>\n
The judge noted that the couple\u2019s relationship appeared to have broken down about a decade ago, after the woman was diagnosed with epilepsy and put on medication that the defendant claimed changed her personality. <\/p>\n
Crown prosecutor Fiona Culliney. Photo \/ Michael Craig<\/p>\n
The judge said both parties had \u201cwild swings\u201d in emotion as the relationship became increasingly volatile. He described the victim as having borderline personality disorder, and both were described as heavy drinkers. <\/p>\n
He outlined several police callouts, noting that both people had been the ones to call authorities with grievances on different occasions. <\/p>\n
On the night of the woman\u2019s death, she was highly intoxicated. The defence suggested, unsuccessfully, that she fell and hit her head due to either intoxication or a seizure. <\/p>\n
The defendant, meanwhile, acknowledged having used methamphetamine earlier that day. But the judge, citing a Crown expert, said there wasn\u2019t enough evidence to determine whether he would have still been under the influence of the drug during the fatal attack. <\/p>\n
Justice Mount described the attack, during an argument about suspected infidelity, as an unintentional killing in which the defendant sounded genuinely shocked as he called 111 over an hour later. <\/p>\n
\u2018Manipulated and gaslit\u2019<\/p>\n
Members of the victim\u2019s family described her in a series of impact statements as someone who was both kind-hearted and gentle. <\/p>\n
Several said they were now in therapy to help cope with her violent death. <\/p>\n
Many said they blamed themselves at times for not seeing the signs of an abusive relationship earlier. <\/p>\n
\u201cIt didn\u2019t need to happen,\u201d said the victim\u2019s father, who travelled from far outside Auckland to attend every day of the trial. \u201cTo know it was done deliberately is incomprehensible.\u201d<\/p>\n
He described the defendant as having \u201cisolated, manipulated and gaslit\u201d his daughter.<\/p>\n
Police officers at a property in Massey, West Auckland, where a woman’s body was found. Photo \/ Alex Burton<\/p>\n
\u201cOur daughter was taken from us long before she died,\u201d he said. \u201cTo know she lived the last few years of her life in pain and fear is intolerable.\u201d<\/p>\n
The victim\u2019s mother said she was not only in extreme mourning but also felt betrayed. <\/p>\n
\u201cOur family trusted the relationship my daughter was in,\u201d she said. \u201cWe never saw this coming …<\/p>\n
\u201cI wish with all my heart that she had been able to leave.\u201d <\/p>\n
\u2018Affront to public\u2019s confidence\u2019<\/p>\n
In most circumstances, murder carries an automatic life sentence with a minimum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years. <\/p>\n
The defence sought the 10-year minimum, while prosecutors advocated for a minimum term of 14 years.<\/p>\n
The judge agreed to a 10-year starting point for the minimum term of imprisonment. He then allowed it to be uplifted by 18 months to account for the previous assault, the breach of a protection order and the fact that the man had been on bail for a strangulation weeks before he killed the woman. <\/p>\n
But the judge then countered that with an 18-month reduction, in part for the hardship a prison sentence would create for his children, bringing the minimum term back to 10 years. <\/p>\n
The Crown had strongly opposed the discount for his children, given the defendant was the person who killed their mother. <\/p>\n
\u201cIt would be an affront to the public\u2019s confidence in the justice system,\u201d Culliney argued. <\/p>\n
Ultimately, however, the judge disagreed. <\/p>\n
Simon Mount KC, before he became a judge, at an unrelated hearing in Invercargill in 2024. Pool photo \/ Southland Times<\/p>\n
The man\u2019s two youngest children had developmental issues and were now cared for by his parents, Justice Mount noted. <\/p>\n
\u201cYou clearly remain an important part of the children\u2019s lives despite what happened,\u201d he told the defendant, who had by that time turned his head back to the courtroom. <\/p>\n
\u201cThey are clearly vulnerable. What happens to you will have a direct impact on them.\u201d<\/p>\n
As the hearing ended, the judge asked the lawyers if there was anything else they wanted suppressed. It was suggested that perhaps a well-known member of the community who spoke in the defendant\u2019s favour should also be considered. <\/p>\n
The judge gave lawyers several days to make additional requests before a redacted written sentencing decision is released. <\/p>\n