The Auckland man when he appeared in Waitakere District Court in June 2024, after he was charged with beating his longtime partner to death. Despite having since been found guilty of murder, his identity is now permanently suppressed. Photo / George Block
A man with a history of domestic violence who beat his longtime partner to death has been allowed to keep his identity permanently secret.
The victim’s name will also never be revealed, a judge in the High Court at Auckland decided today.
Jurors found the man guilty of the June 2024 murder, as well as a prior incident involving strangulation and breach of a protection order, at the end of a five-week trial in September.
The defendant, 44, adamantly and awkwardly turned away in the dock for more than 30 minutes today as the victim’s family members gave emotional victim impact statements. He never once glanced at the podium in front of him where they spoke.
Seeing evidence at trial of what he did to the woman, the years of secret abuse and his “complete lack of remorse” had “been one of the most despicable things I’ve ever experienced”, the victim’s sister said.
“It’s a continuous nightmare I can’t wake from,” the woman’s best friend later added through tears, describing having to bury her on what would have been her birthday. “Life has never been the same.”
The victim’s family opposed permanent suppression, as did the media, but prosecutors did not.
They conceded to the defence argument – bolstered by a psychological report – that naming either the convicted murderer or his victim could cause extreme hardship to one of the four children they had together.
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 “toxic and volatile”.
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.
There were repeated reports of violence – and seemingly just as many retractions from the woman – which prosecutors described as signs of a woman trapped in an abusive relationship.
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.
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.
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’t seen the defendant’s hand make contact with the victim’s face.
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.
The judge noted that the couple’s 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.
The judge said both parties had “wild swings” in emotion as the relationship became increasingly volatile. He described the victim as having borderline personality disorder, and both were described as heavy drinkers.
He outlined several police callouts, noting that both people had been the ones to call authorities with grievances on different occasions.
On the night of the woman’s death, she was highly intoxicated. The defence suggested, unsuccessfully, that she fell and hit her head due to either intoxication or a seizure.
The defendant, meanwhile, acknowledged having used methamphetamine earlier that day. But the judge, citing a Crown expert, said there wasn’t enough evidence to determine whether he would have still been under the influence of the drug during the fatal attack.
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.
Members of the victim’s family described her in a series of impact statements as someone who was both kind-hearted and gentle.
Several said they were now in therapy to help cope with her violent death.
Many said they blamed themselves at times for not seeing the signs of an abusive relationship earlier.
“It didn’t need to happen,” said the victim’s father, who travelled from far outside Auckland to attend every day of the trial. “To know it was done deliberately is incomprehensible.”
He described the defendant as having “isolated, manipulated and gaslit” his daughter.
“Our daughter was taken from us long before she died,” he said. “To know she lived the last few years of her life in pain and fear is intolerable.”
The victim’s mother said she was not only in extreme mourning but also felt betrayed.
“Our family trusted the relationship my daughter was in,” she said. “We never saw this coming ...
“I wish with all my heart that she had been able to leave.”
In most circumstances, murder carries an automatic life sentence with a minimum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years.
The defence sought the 10-year minimum, while prosecutors advocated for a minimum term of 14 years.
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.
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.
The Crown had strongly opposed the discount for his children, given the defendant was the person who killed their mother.
“It would be an affront to the public’s confidence in the justice system,” Culliney argued.
Ultimately, however, the judge disagreed.
The man’s two youngest children had developmental issues and were now cared for by his parents, Justice Mount noted.
“You clearly remain an important part of the children’s lives despite what happened,” he told the defendant, who had by that time turned his head back to the courtroom.
“They are clearly vulnerable. What happens to you will have a direct impact on them.”
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’s favour should also be considered.
The judge gave lawyers several days to make additional requests before a redacted written sentencing decision is released.
Craig Kapitan is an Auckland-based journalist covering courts and justice. He joined the Herald in 2021 and has reported on courts since 2002 in three newsrooms in the US and New Zealand.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.