Kerry Te Amo (left) and Ashley Winter have appealed the convictions and life sentences they received in May 2020 for the murder of Demetrius Pairama, 17, in 2018. Photo / Sam Hurley
Kerry Te Amo (left) and Ashley Winter have appealed the convictions and life sentences they received in May 2020 for the murder of Demetrius Pairama, 17, in 2018. Photo / Sam Hurley
Two convicted murderers who kidnapped, tortured and killed a teenager in a derelict Auckland state house have appealed their convictions and life sentences.
Ashley Winter aka Toko Shane Rei Winter and Kerry Te Amo appeared before Justices Cooper, Peters and Palmer in the Court of Appeal on Tuesday.
In September2019 the pair were found guilty after a two-and-a-half week trial before Justice Timothy Brewer in the High Court at Auckland of torturing and murdering Demetrius Pairama, 17, at an Auckland "house of horrors".
The pair were jailed for life, in May 2020, with Winter given a minimum non-parole period of 19 years and 4 months and 19 years imposed on Te Amo.
Jonathan Hudson, appearing for Te Amo, appealed his conviction, claiming a miscarriage of justice as a result of his second video interview being admitted into evidence.
Before the interview, a detective inspector had spoken to Te Amo, but it wasn't recorded in a notebook or on video, where he had been given incorrect advice about the maximum penalty he faced, Hudson said.
The officer also gave advice about contacting a lawyer that could help him get a sentence around 10 years.
Te Amo was not told he potentially faced a mandatory life sentence or the minimum period of imprisonment was more likely to be at least 17 years, he said.
Demetrius Pairama, 17, was known as a bubbly teenager with a bright smile. Photo / supplied
Te Amo rejected the lawyer suggested, labelling him a "guilty lawyer", somebody who would encourage him to plead guilty, and went on to make a particularly incriminating video in which he made a number of admissions.
Hudson submitted Te Amo's right to consult and instruct a lawyer without delay wasn't provided to him and wasn't provided to him in an effective manner.
Te Amo had not been told he could be in prison until he died.
Hudson said the contact was an overreach that had significant consequences for a vulnerable man who had just been charged with murder.
The 5 per cent discount applied to the 20-year imprisonment starting point, adopted by Justice Brewer, for mitigating features including remorse was too low and 10 per cent was more appropriate to take into acount all other factors including exposure to alcoholism and parental neglect.
Appearing for Winter Warren Pyke submitted a direction to the jury their decision should be based on human judgment rather than looking at the evidence in an analytical manner didn't steer them in the right direction.
Pyke also argued the jury were not given a clear direction about how to assess the evidence given by a witness who had been granted immunity.
He claimed a direction outlining immunity did not guarantee the truthfulness of the witness needed to be given, despite direct challenges to the evidence being made during cross-examination.
While there was a live appeal against the sentence imposed on Winter, Pyke said he couldn't offer any arguments in support of it and didn't have any instructions to advance it.
Crown prosecutor Zannah Johnston said it was obviously regrettable there was no record of the police officer talking with Te Amo and potential penalties were discussed.
She said Te Amo had experience in the justice system and submitted the conversation with the detective had not undermined his understanding about his right to consult a lawyer.
Te Amo was aware he had options whether to make admissions or not to make admissions, she said.
Zannah argued Te Amo could not point to a guilty plea as an expression of remorse.
Justice Brewer had told the jury their task is not an emotional one and advised them to look at the evidence logically and rationally, putting aside any emotion in his summing up, she said.
Zannah submitted inconsistencies in the evidence given by the witness with immunity were also repeated in the summing up, so the jury must have been aware it was something they needed to consider.
The jury were also invited to assess the evidence or by looking at whether it stacked up against other evidence, she said.
