‘Cruel’murderer loses sentence bid
The Supreme Court has thrown out an appeal by the man who killed Christchurch woman Renee Duckmanton before setting her body alight.
In April this year, Sainey Marong appealed his minimum 18-year sentence to the Court of Appeal on the grounds the sentencing judge, Justice Cameron Mander, erred in his findings.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Marong’s appeal in May. He then went to the Supreme Court but yesterday’s judgment dismissed his appeal.
Marong claimed there had been a miscarriage of justice and he was raising matters of general or public importance.
But the Supreme Court ruled there was no basis to realistically suggest there had been a miscarriage of justice.
Marong strangled Duckmanton, a sex worker, and set fire to her body on the side of a road near Rakaia in May 2016. When he was sentenced for the murder, Duckmanton’s mother, Tracy, said she hoped he would ‘‘rot in hell’’.
Justice Mander described Marong’s actions as ‘‘particularly callous and cruel’’, before jailing him.
The issues Marong tried to appeal relate to his minimum nonparole period.
Marong was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 18 years in April 2018, but the standard time for a murder with at least one serious aggravating circumstance is 17 years.
Serious aggravating circumstance include victim vulnerability, calculated or lengthy planning, particularly callous killing, or any other exceptional factors.
The Court of Appeal found Marong’s murder had three serious aggravating factors and the 18 years minimum non-parole period was appropriate.
Those three factors were:
❚ The murder involved calculated or lengthy planning because Marong conducted ‘‘multiple internet searches’’ relevant to killing a Christchurch sex worker and avoiding detection.
❚ The murder had a high level of callousness because of the way Marong disposed of Duckmanton’s body and comments to prison officers that murder was like ‘‘hunting in the wild’’.
❚ Duckmanton was a vulnerable victim because she was confined in Marong’s car and because ‘‘she was very small in stature’’.
Marong said the internet searches were not directly relevant to the way Duckmanton died and therefore did not meet the criteria for lengthy or calculated planning.
He said callousness had to be related to the way the killing itself was carried out and so his actions afterward were not relevant.
Marong said Duckmanton’s small stature did not qualify her as ‘‘particularly vulnerable’’ and ‘‘she took a risk in trusting her clients’’ as a sex worker.
The Supreme Court ruled the Court of Appeal applied ‘‘wellsettled principles’’ with regard to the serious aggravating factors – rejecting all of Marong’s submissions.