Blog 22 February 2023

HOW WAS MARK PAKENHAM ABLE TO GET AWAY WITH MURDER WHEN IT CAME TO THE KILLING OF SARA NIETHE?

 

Hang on, didn’t he plead guilty to manslaughter?

Yes, but the implications of doing so are far less then a conviction for murder.

If an individual is convicted of murder in New Zealand the mandatory penalty is life imprisonment with a non- parole period of at least 10 years.

Not so for manslaughter and particularly in Pakenham’s case where he was virtually immediately eligible for parole once he started his 6 year, 7 month sentence in 2013.

This was because he had already spent around 2 years on remand in custody having initially been charged with murder.

But for Sara’s family the story gets worse when the Parole Board hears that he pleaded guilty to manslaughter to avoid a murder conviction and that he was now claiming to have had nothing to do with her disappearance.

So how was this situation allowed to happen in law whereby Pakenham was able to negotiate a plea bargain and plead guilty to the reduced charge of manslaughter.

This without ever disclosing what he had done with Sara’s body?

This is of course the $64,000 question that all of New Zealand must have been asking when the shock announcement was made that Pakenham was pleading guilty to manslaughter.

For years he had been saying that he had loved Sara and had nothing to do with her disappearance.

He was happy to appear on television shows such as Police 10/7 and the Sunday Programme proclaiming his innocence.

Even the authorities from the very early days of the investigation publicly stated that Pakenham wasn’t a suspect in her disappearance.

His downfall came when an informant, who was “wired up”, recorded two conversations with him where he admitted overdosing Sara with methamphetamine and her dying on the floor in front of him.

During one of these conversations, he went further and admitted knowing the location of her body.

In order to understand what happened in a legal sense around Pakenham’s plea bargaining, it is necessary to understand the legal process.

Prior to charging an individual with a criminal offence such as murder, the Police will consult with the Crown Solicitor who will review the evidence and provide legal advice as to there being sufficient evidence to proceed.

This will include Briefs of Evidence of all potential Crown Witnesses in the case, including experts, where applicable.

In a case such as this, which is known colloquially known as a “no body homicide”, it is an extremely high threshold that the Police will need to reach before getting the go ahead from the Crown to arrest and charge a suspect with murder, and rightly so.

Obviously, this was approved as Pakenham was arrested in 2011, 8 years after the disappearance of Sara and charged with her murder.

It is what happened in the next 2 years while Pakenham was in custody awaiting trial that needs further examination.

During this time, the Police had a responsibility to provide Pakenham’s Defence Counsel with full disclosure of the material they had collected during the investigation into his murder charge.

This would have included original statements from all persons interviewed during the investigation and a range of other material relating to the case.

Once his lawyer was in possession of the disclosure and reviewed it in detail, he would have met with his client for a discussion around the evidence against him.

Obviously the lawyer has a responsibility to act in the client’s best interest and give an informed opinion on the chances of the murder charge being proved by the Crown.

Remember that the Parole Board had heard that Pakenham pleaded guilty to manslaughter in order to avoid a murder conviction.

For him to do so, you would think that he must have been satisfied that if the murder trial had gone ahead, he would have been convicted of murder by a Jury on the basis of the evidence before them.

Clearly, Pakenham did not want to take the risk of such a conviction with the implications being obvious.

The next question for him would have been how I convince the Crown Solicitor to agree to reducing the murder charge to manslaughter on the basis of a guilty plea?

He had already made recorded admissions to an associate that he had overdosed Sara with methamphetamine and killed her.

The process of getting the charge reduced was not that straight forward.

Even if the Crown Solicitor agreed to support a reduction in the charge to manslaughter, approval needed to be obtained from the Solicitor General who is the only person able to approve this reduction in New Zealand law.

Pakenham’s biggest problem appears to have been how to convince an authority such as the Solicitor General that the charge should be reduced without agreeing to disclose the whereabouts of Sara’s body.

One would think that this should not have been a problem for him if it had been an accidental death.

If he had disclosed the location of the body, surely there would be no evidence of anything other than what he was claiming, an accidental death by drug overdose?

But what if violence had been involved?

Pakenham had a shocking record involving violence against former partners.

Pakenham claimed that he could not remember what he had done with Sara’s body due to alcohol and drug abuse on the night.

He was clearly a meth addict and was claiming memory loss as being a symptom of that condition.

Despite his so-called alcohol and drug consumption on the night Sara died, he was able to be at work as a farm hand from 7.30 the next morning.

He completed a full day’s work including spraying weeds, using farm machinery, repairing fences and filling out timesheets for a full weeks work.

This was all done under the supervision of his farm manager who did not observe anything usual in his behaviour.

In this case, we don’t know exactly what submissions were made by Pakenham’s legal Counsel to the Crown to support a reduction in the murder charge.

The Solicitor General has refused to disclose the content of his decision to approve the reduction on the basis that his office is not subject to the Official Information Act.

That is a matter for you as the reader of this blog but surely it is in the public interest for the wider community to know how decisions of this nature are made.

Why the lack of transparency and accountability for the most serious criminal charge under New Zealand law?

For your information,  the Ombudsman has upheld the Solicitor General’s refusal to release his decision so the public will never know why the charge was reduced.

However, Pakenham’s sentencing notes in the Hamilton High Court on the manslaughter charge offer some insight into home this came about.

The court accepted that Sara “consented to the administering of the drug”.

This can only have been on the basis of a submission by Pakenham’s defence counsel as to his position.

The only evidence that Sara consented must have come from Pakenham himself.

He was a proven liar and unreliable so why was he believed?

I cannot provide an answer to that question other than to say his “dishonesty” as described by the Parole Board in their decision to release him from prison in 2016, was certainly a serious element to his character.

They say that the proof is in the pudding; Pakenham lied for 6 years about being involved in Sara’s disappearance, he lied about her consenting to being injected with methamphetamine and finally he lied about not being responsible for her death.

What do you think, if the murder charge had gone to a jury, would he have been convicted?

Perhaps we will never know.

 

Blog 2 December 2022

PRIVATE SEARCH PLANNED FOR SARA NIETHE, KILLED AT KAIHERE

ON 30 MARCH 2003 BY MARK PAKENHAM

Planning is underway for a private search for the remains of Sara Niethe, a 31 year old mother who was killed at Kaihere on the Hauraki Plains  on Sunday the 30^th of March 2003 by Mark Pakenham.

The work is being carried out on a pro-bono basis by Bruce Currie, a Tauranga private investigator and tracer of missing persons.

“The Covid-19  lockdown in 2020 gave me the opportunity and time to conduct a detailed review of the case including an in-depth examination of the original search”, says Mr Currie. With the 20^th anniversary of her disappearance fast approaching, this is the ideal time to conduct a new search. 

Although I have faced roadblocks along the way, I am determined to get a result for Sara’s family.

The review involved requesting disclosure from the Police under the Official Information Act and interviewing over 50 people from around New Zealand and Australia.

A number of locations of interest have been visited to determine the requirements for a new search.

The focus of the new search will be on an area bounded by Ohinewai Road, State Highway 27 and Torehape Road, West, Kaihere.

This area was not searched by the Police in 2003 to any degree as they were working on the premise that Sara had left Pakenham’s property of her own accord and headed home to Kerepehi, a short drive of some 6 kilometres.

Thousands of man hours were spent searching the wider Hauraki Plains involving a helicopter, dive teams and search and rescue personnel but nothing was found.

However, the immediate Kaihere area where Pakenham lived was not a focus area  although the farm where he was currently working, some 10 kilometres away, was driven over and eliminated.

From the early days of the search for Sara, Pakenham was not treated as a suspect in her disappearance.

He happily made appearances on various television shows, adamantly denying any involvement in her disappearance. 

It was not until he made recorded admissions to an associate in 2009 that he had in fact killed  Sara that the case became a homicide investigation and he was charged with her murder.

There is no suggestion that Mr Pakenham was assisted by another party to dispose of Sara’s body and vehicle. 

By his own admission, he was a meth addict and used the drug on a regular basis.

He used his alcohol and drug consumption as the reason why he could not remember what he had done with Sara and her vehicle after she had died.

Because of his local knowledge, I believe that the Kaihere District  is holding a terrible secret which Project Sara seeks to uncover.

The location will be in a remote area not visited by local farmers and residents and could involve the bush and rugged terrain which bounds the area.

“My interest in the case arose many years ago after I left the Police having been responsible for all homicide and serious crime investigations in the region.

It was a case that got to me a little since the victim was the mother of 3 children under the age of 12 and they have never had closure”, says Mr Currie.

Mark Pakenham was charged with her murder in 2011 but the case never went to trial as he pleaded guilty to manslaughter but refused to disclose what he had done with Sara’s body and vehicle.

While in prison, he changed his story and claimed that he made up a story about injecting Sara with methamphetamine and accidentally overdosing her in order to avoid a murder conviction.

Even worse was that the Parole Board heard that he was now denying any involvement in Sara’s disappearance. However, they had little choice but to release him as he had satisfied their requirements during the course of his sentence.

Mr Currie says he is wanting to hear from farmers and other property owners in the Kaihere District about possible locations to be searched.

These may be areas where Mr Pakenham was previously employed as a farm hand or other areas from which he and associates had access to and were taking firewood. We know that he owned a digger and was using this to haul trees out of the bush.

He has previously told a local resident that he knew of a hiding place where a body would never be found.

Project Sara is about finding that location and returning Sara to her family, Mr Currie says.

Pakenham was working in the Kaihere District from 1999 until 2003 and the firewood he was taking from the bush was being sold around the region and to the local community. On occasions, he travelled to Huntly using Ohinewai Road to deliver the firewood.

Anyone with information that might assist the private search is urged to contact Mr Currie on 027 844 1349 or by e mail, bruce(at)mrtracer.co.nz.

View Newshub News article - 3 December 2022

LETS FIND SARA AND BRING HER HOME

 

Blog 9 December 2022

PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS PRIVATE SEARCH FOR SARA

VENUE                  KAIHERE COMMUNITY HALL, STATE HIGHWAY 27

DATE                     THURSDAY 15 DECEMBER 2022

TIME                     12.00-1.00PM

Bruce Currie is seeking help from the community to find Sara.  He wants to meet with as many property owners in the area as possible.

The properties of interest are those on Ohinewai Rd, State Highway 27 to Torehape Rd West and Torehape Rd West to South Road.

The meeting will run for approximately 1 hour and a full briefing will be given as to the events of 30 March 2003.  Any farmers, pig/deer hunters, and locals with knowledge of the landscape are invited to attend.

The search itself is planned for late January 2023 when the weather is more settled.