But at a recent sentencing in the Wellington District Court of the man charged with burglary and aggravated assault after breaking into the family home, the two cases were again linked, this time by his lawyer.<\/p>\n
Defence lawyer Jason Owers sought name suppression for his client on the ground that it could affect his fair trial rights if he were charged in connection with Nabizadah\u2019s death. <\/p>\n
Police and the Crown opposed the application. <\/p>\n
A job sheet prepared for sentencing by the officer in charge of Nabizadah\u2019s case, Detective Senior Sergeant Tim Leitch, said there was no risk of interference with the ongoing investigation if the man\u2019s name were published.<\/p>\n
Prosecutor Lee van der Lem submitted that any impact was speculative, and the media could be ordered to take down any stories published should the man ever face trial.<\/p>\n
\u2018A persistent and deliberate search of the property\u2019<\/p>\n
According to the summary of facts, the man entered the house in Miramar in the early hours of March 17 last year through an insecure back door. <\/p>\n
Once inside, he spent about 40 minutes going through the house, searching for and photographing documents. He also gathered several sets of vehicle keys belonging to the occupants. One set is still missing.<\/p>\n
The woman who lived at the house got up about 2am after hearing a noise in the kitchen. Thinking it was her children, she went to investigate.<\/p>\n
As she walked towards the kitchen, she could see the man\u2019s reflection in the sliding door and realised it was too big to be either of her children. <\/p>\n
She returned to the bedroom, woke her husband, and told him there was an intruder in the house. <\/p>\n
Her husband found the man in the children\u2019s playroom, rummaging through items on the floor. <\/p>\n
He told him to get out of the house and asked him why he was there. The man refused to leave, saying he was sorry and that someone was chasing him. There was a fight, during which the pair traded blows. <\/p>\n
The man ran out of the house, followed by the homeowner, who wanted to make sure he left the property. <\/p>\n
Abdulhassan Nabizadah was found critically injured on the corner of a Wellington street, minutes after police were called to a nearby house. Photo \/ RNZ. <\/p>\n
As he ran, the man dropped a white cap with a red swastika embroidered on it. There was a second fight in the garden before he fled.<\/p>\n
When the homeowner returned to the house, he found he had a cut on his neck. Although relatively minor, it bled a lot, and he was treated by paramedics in the playroom, which he found upsetting, Judge Stephen Harrop said. <\/p>\n
Police arrested the suspected burglar after forensic evidence and fingerprints linked him to the address. <\/p>\n
The sentence<\/p>\n
Judge Harrop described the man\u2019s behaviour, which included finding and photographing a driver\u2019s licence, rates bill and bank cards, as \u201cvery persistent and rather chilling behaviour\u201d. <\/p>\n
\u201cWhy would you be doing that?\u201d the judge asked. <\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s not just a case of taking alcohol or money and getting out; you lingered and were undertaking a persistent and deliberate search of the property, recording information.\u201d <\/p>\n
The only possible explanation was that the man intended to use it for identity theft or something similar, he said.<\/p>\n
The man later told a report writer that he was \u201csimply bored\u201d, which the judge said he found difficult to accept, given the length of time he spent inside the house before being discovered.<\/p>\n
The Crown sought a starting point of between three and a half and four years\u2019 jail, much higher than that suggested by the defence.<\/p>\n
Van der Lem agreed that there should be full 25% credit for the man\u2019s guilty plea, but submitted it should also encompass any credit for remorse, saying he had shown limited insight into his offending. <\/p>\n
The question was what weight the court should put on the man\u2019s background, which involved the loss of his father when the man was a child. <\/p>\n
\u201cThis court is left to grapple with inferences about what the bereavement might have caused,\u201d the prosecutor said in relation to the report prepared for sentencing. <\/p>\n
Owers told the court that the death had a significant impact on his client, who grew up in a small, nurturing town. Before his father\u2019s death, he had been good at sports.<\/p>\n
Afterwards, he began using cannabis and alcohol, and started taking methamphetamine at the age of 15.<\/p>\n
In sentencing the man, Judge Harrop accepted there was a connection between the death of his father and the recent offending. <\/p>\n
But he also noted that \u201csomething that wasn\u2019t your fault has led to something that was your fault\u201d. <\/p>\n
While a prison sentence was inevitable, the question for the court was how long it would be, given the man had already spent 15 months in custody.<\/p>\n
He agreed with the Crown that the aggravating factors in the case included the time the man spent inside the house, which distinguished it from a typical burglary. <\/p>\n
The man knew there were people asleep in the house, risking a physical confrontation, which is exactly what happened. <\/p>\n
While the victim impact statements were not read out in open court, the judge noted the victims had suffered acute stress and anxiety and remained deeply affected by what had happened. <\/p>\n
But he also had regard to the man\u2019s upbringing, guilty pleas and a willingness to attend restorative justice, although this did not proceed because the victims were opposed to it. <\/p>\n
The judge acknowledged there was an element of remorse. Although the pre-sentence report writer said the man had little understanding of the ongoing effect of his actions on his victims, Owers assured the judge he\u2019d gone through the victims\u2019 statements with his client. <\/p>\n
After adopting a starting point of three years and three months\u2019 jail and taking into account the man\u2019s personal factors, Judge Harrop imposed a final sentence of two years\u2019 jail. <\/p>\n
This included special conditions that the man was not to contact the victims or enter the suburb where they lived for six months after the detention end date. <\/p>\n
Name suppression<\/p>\n
The judge then considered the question of permanent name suppression, which he refused to grant, saying he was satisfied by the Crown submissions. <\/p>\n
\u201cI am not accepting that publication of your name in relation to this offending creates any material risk in the event you were ever charged with homicide, and there\u2019s no suggestion you will be at the moment; it\u2019s entirely speculative.\u201d <\/p>\n
But even if he were, simply being identified as a suspect could not amount to extreme hardship, Judge Harrop said.<\/p>\n
He ordered interim name suppression to continue after Owers indicated that he would appeal against the decision.<\/p>\n
Catherine Hutton is an Open Justice reporter, based in Wellington. She has worked as a journalist at the Waikato Times and RNZ. Most recently, she worked as a media adviser at the Ministry of Justice. <\/p>\n