R v Job [2014] NZHC 1057 (20 May 2014)

Last Updated: 20 May 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-004-1685 [2014] NZHC 1057

THE QUEEN

v

_{PETER SHAUN JOHNATHON JOB}

Hearing:	20 May 2014
Appearances:	W P Cathcart for Crown M N Pecotic for Offender
Sentence:	20 May 2014

_{SENTENCE OF COOPER J}

Solicitors:

Meredith Connell, Crown Solicitors, Auckland

Copy to:

_{M N Pecotic, Auckland}

R v JOB [2014] NZHC 1057 [20 May 2014]

[1] Mr Job, I have to sentence you now for the murder of Nathan James Albert, the crime that you committed in the early hours of New Year’s Day in 2013.

[2] It was established at the trial that there was a gathering of friends and family at your partner’s home in Mangere on New Year’s Eve 2012. Mr Albert was there, as was his girlfriend Leesa Job, a 16 year old who was your niece. Four of you decided to go into town. Mr Albert and Leesa, and you and your partner Marina.

[3] You went to the Forte Bar, at number 2 Fort Lane, in downtown Auckland. There was evidence of an arrangement that Mr Albert would be buying drinks for you at the bar, but apparently he only did so on one occasion and you were apparently aggrieved about that. You also gave evidence at the trial that you were annoyed when Mr Albert spoke of living with your niece, Leesa. You left the bar and returned to your car which was occupied by Leesa who had been denied entry to the bar. When Mr Albert arrived there was a fight between you and him. As a result of that you decided that you would leave him behind and go home with Leesa and Marina. Having arrived at your home at 74A Pilkington Road, it was decided that they would leave to go to obtain some takeaway food.

[4] Mr Albert then arrived at your address, having got into a taxi in the city. The taxi driver, Mr Ali, gave evidence. He said that once he had driven into the driveway, Mr Albert got out of the taxi without paying and knocked on the door of your house. Mr Albert went inside with you and according to the evidence that you gave at the trial he attacked you. The taxi driver said that he could see you engaged in a discussion with Mr Albert, but he was not able to see or hear what you were saying.

[5] The taxi driver said that you both then came out of the house, and that you told Mr Albert to pay the fare, which Mr Albert refused to do. You and Mr Albert then faced each other, steering at each other, about an arm’s length apart. At that stage Mr Albert ran off, and you ran after him. You were both running then in the direction of Panmure, that is to say along Pilkington Road roughly in a southerly direction. You claimed that you followed him because you were concerned about the safety of your family, implying that he might intercept Leesa and Marina as they

returned with the takeaways. I do not accept that that was what motivated you. If that was your concern there was no need for you to go as far along Pilkington Road as Court Crescent.

[6] Your own evidence was that you had armed yourself with the knife in the kitchen when Mr Albert was there with you. However, the knife was not seen by the taxi driver and I am satisfied that you must have concealed it. The account that you gave of the subsequent events in which Mr Albert was stabbed by you is consistent with the knife having been concealed behind your back, placed blade downwards into the waistband beneath your shirt.

[7] This knife was a substantial knife, about 30 cm in length and with a blade

18.5 cm long. You caught up with Mr Albert on the north-eastern corner of Pilkington Road and Court Crescent. It was there that you stabbed him twice. One wound was in the left thigh, the other underneath his left armpit. The latter was the fatal wound and was described in evidence as being 3.2 cm in length, but the blade went in for about 10 cm angled upwards, cutting two blood vessels just under the collarbone. They were the auxiliary vein and an artery. The major source of the bleeding which led to Mr Albert’s death was the auxiliary vein, which was in fact severed by the knife. You gave the jury a detailed account of the circumstances at the intersection of Pilkington Road and Court Crescent in which you asserted that you had only used the knife as a last resort and in self-defence. The jury must have rejected that account.

[8] Ms Pecotic submits on your behalf that the jury might have rejected self- defence because they thought that you used excessive force. It is clear that they decided you had acted with murderous intent whether deliberately killing Mr Albert or, deciding that you had murderous intent under s 167(b) of the Crimes Act, which as I expect you know, involves an intent to cause bodily injury to Mr Albert which you knew would be likely to cause death, but were reckless whether death ensued or not.

[9] Mr Job I reject the suggestion that you were acting in self-defence at any stage. I consider that having armed yourself with a knife, you pursued Mr Albert

down Pilkington Road. You knew then that you were armed and he was not and you knew that if you were able to catch up with him you would be able to overpower him by using the knife. I think that is what you intended to do and that is what you did do.

[10] You claimed in evidence that Mr Albert suddenly attacked you at the Court Crescent intersection, hit you on the jaw and knocked you to the ground. You described him kicking you repeatedly in the upper body area as you lay in a foetal position pleading with him to stop and it was only then that you pulled the knife out and presented it to him whilst you were sitting on the ground. As the fight went on by your description of it, Mr Albert had the upper hand throughout effectively impaling himself on the knife as you held it out trying to prevent him attacking you. According to the story you told the jury this was a fight in which Mr Albert had the upper hand pretty much throughout and if the jury had accepted your account I doubt that they would have found that you had used excessive force. On your account, you could not even see what was happening with the knife because your head was down and tucked into your arm as you tried to avoid Mr Albert’s ongoing assaults. That account was certainly not borne out by the medical examinations that you subsequently underwent. I consider the account you gave must have been false and that the suggestion that you were acting in self-defence would have been, quite rightly, rejected by the jury.

[11] After the fatal wound was inflicted Mr Albert staggered across the road to where he collapsed on the eastern side in the vicinity of number 66 Pilkington Road. I accept the Crown’s submission that you did not offer him assistance nor did you attempt to seek help on his behalf by waving down passing cars. You hid the murder weapon in a hedge as you left the scene. It was only when Leesa and Marina arrived back home that you arranged for Leesa to return to the scene to see if she could help. But it was too late by then.

[12] Mr Job this was a very serious crime, involving as it did the use of a knife. As a result of it, Mr Albert bled to death as he lay on the side of Pilkington Road.

[13] You have listened today to the statements that have been read by members of Mr Albert’s family. I acknowledge in particular the presence here today of Mr Albert’s mother, Mrs Jenny Albert, his father, Mr James Albert, as well as his partner Haley Cerutti, the mother of their son, Kaelem-James Albert. Also a statement has been read on behalf of Mr Albert’s cousin, Meagan Alanotama. They have eloquently told of the grief that they are suffering having lost a loved member of their family and I wish to acknowledge their courage in standing before the Court and describing the pain they feel, including the pain they have when thinking of his children, Charlotte and Kaelem-James.

[14] A pre-sentence report has been prepared. From it I understand that you are the father of six children ranging in age from one to 17 years. You had custody of the oldest child, your partner caring for the others. But over the years you have been active in caring for foster children and you were looking after three foster children at the time of your arrest for the present crime.

[15] Clearly Mr Job you have done good things for these children and you have also been actively involved helping people as a Maori Warden in South Auckland. I have also received references which I have read that have been provided for you by friends and family including your cousin Veda Allen, your aunt Shirley Rielly, your older brother Bernard and others. All of them speak highly of you and of the important role that you have had with your whanau. I have also seen your cousin Stephen Allen’s letter which shows a great deal of insight I think into the effect of drugs and alcohol on the way that you have led your life, and he has emphasised for me your protective attitude towards members of your family. For reasons I have explained I do not accept that you were acting to protect anyone when you killed Mr Albert. But these letters of support from members of your family are plainly sincere. I have to say that you have let yourself down badly with the current offending and effectively you have let those good people down too.

[16] Further, I note you have a substantial number of previous convictions although nothing like the crime for which today you are to be sentenced. So you are not in a position to suggest that the sentence that I impose ought to be influenced by previous good character.

[17] I have seen the letter of apology that you have written which has been discussed today. It will be for Mr Albert’s family to make of that what they will. From my point of view it does sit somewhat uncomfortably with the idea of self- defence that you evidently intend to maintain.

[18] Mr Job, under the Sentencing Act 2002, an offender who is convicted of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless, having regard to the circumstances of the offence or the offender, a sentence of imprisonment for life would be manifestly unjust. There is nothing in the circumstances of this offence or in your circumstances that would make a sentence of life imprisonment manifestly unjust and that is the sentence that I will impose.

[19] I explain for your benefit and for that of others present, that the sentence of life imprisonment means what is says. However, the Parole Board may consider granting parole after the expiry of a stated minimum term of imprisonment. Whether or not they do will depend on their assessment of the risk that you pose to the community when they come to consider parole and whether they consider you have properly accepted responsibility for the harm that you have caused to Mr Albert and his family by your offending.

[20] So the only real issue that I have to decide today is what minimum term of imprisonment must be imposed when I sentence you to life imprisonment. As to that, Ms Pecotic has urged on your behalf that the normal ten year minimum term should apply. The Crown argues for a higher minimum term of ten years six months.

[21] Mr Cathcart has said that were I to decide that this was a case of recklessness the normal ten years should apply in those circumstances and that it would only be if I decided you acted with murderous intent under s 167(a) of the Crimes Act that the ten years six months minimum term should apply.

[22] Ms Pecotic’s submission essentially relies on the proposition, as I understand it, that the jury might have concluded that you were defending yourself but used excessive force to do so and also she relies on a submission that the jury must have acted under s 167(b). I have told you why I do not accept the submission that you

were acting in self-defence. I consider that the weight of the evidence was that you pursued Mr Albert and deliberately stabbed him. Nor am I prepared to accept the submission that she made that you assisted Mr Albert in any meaningful way after you had stabbed him. I add that I do not consider the fact that you did not apply for bail and offered to plead guilty to manslaughter, should have any effect on the sentencing outcome.

[23] Ms Pecotic submitted that Mr Albert was the initial aggressor noting that it was accepted that he assaulted you in Fort Street. However, the events in Fort Street were distant in place and time from what took place on Pilkington Road.

[24] The Crown for its part emphasises the fact that you chased the unsuspecting Mr Albert along the road, you stabbed him twice with a substantial weapon, your crime has had a devastating effect on Mr Albert’s family and you failed to get help for Mr Albert at a stage when you must have known that you had seriously wounded him.

[25] In the circumstances of this case and whether or not the jury acted under s 167(a) or 167(b), I am satisfied that the Crown’s submission that there should be a minimum term of ten years six months is amply justified. That is necessary to hold you accountable for the harm that you did, to denounce your conduct, and for purposes of deterrence and protection of the community.

[26] Please stand Mr Job. I now sentence you for the murder of Nathan James Albert to a term of imprisonment for life. I direct that you are to serve a minimum term of imprisonment of ten years six months.