Sarah Tarei and Samuel Fane appearing in the High Court in 2021. Photo / NZME
Sarah Tarei and Samuel Fane appearing in the High Court in 2021. Photo / NZME
A double murderer who played a key part in a five-day, four-death saga has had the appeal against his 17-year minimum sentence and conviction dismissed.
In July 2021, Samuel Deane Fane was sentenced to life imprisonment with a 17-year minimum non-parole period for the murders of Paul Lasslett, 43, and Nicholas Littlewood, 32. A jury had earlier found him guilty of both charges.
The deaths were among four in five days in February 2020 caused by Samuel and his brother Anthony Fane.
On February 9, Anthony killed his partner Jessie Lee Booth, 30, at their Brookfield home, using a crossbow after he became convinced she and Lasslett were having an affair.
Two days later on February 11, the Fane brothers drove to Lasslett’s Ōmanawa home with a cut-down pump-action shotgun and .22 calibre rifle and fatally shot him with the rifle and shotgun and Littlewood with the shotgun.
During Samuel’s jury trial, the killings were described as “execution-style”.
Samuel Fane's blue Ford Territory arriving at Paul Lasslett's Ormsby Lane property.
The next day, Samuel fled with his partner Sarah Lee Tarei - later given nine months’ home detention for being an accessory after the fact.
While in Wellington, Samuel made a phone call to an inmate he knew and described in “poorly disguised terms” what had happened, the written appeal ruling released this week said.
“Anthony said he would not allow the police to arrest him and would go out ‘in a blaze of glory’,” Samuel said, according to the ruling.
On February 13, in Tauranga, Anthony was shot dead by police after he fired multiple rounds at Armed Offenders Squad members after a lengthy pursuit. The rifle was found in his vehicle.
The next day Booth’s body was found and Samuel was arrested. The shotgun used to kill Lasslett and Littlewood was found in Tarei’s vehicle.
During Samuel’s jury trial, the Crown argued he was the principal offender.
Samuel’s appeal lawyer Simon Lance appealed the convictions on the basis the evidence was insufficient to prove Samuel was a party to the murders.
Lance argued the trial judge misdirected the jury and did not fairly put the defence case as it related to Lasslett’s murder.
He also appealed on alleged misdirections from the trial judge about the standard of proof and the need for jury unanimity.
Lance maintained the defence Anthony was the principal offender.
He argued there was no basis to hold Samuel criminally liable for Littlewood’s murder because Littlewood “simply happened to be present” at Lasslett’s house and was not previously known to the brothers.
“In the absence of either brother knowing Mr Littlewood would be present, Samuel could not have contemplated this person’s murder,” Lance argued.
There was therefore insufficient evidence Samuel had the knowledge and intent to help Anthony kill Littlewood, Lance argued. He said Anthony was solely responsible.
The Court of Appeal ruled Samuel was “well aware” of the intention to murder Lasslett and the “real risk” of others also being killed.
“Samuel must have appreciated that a probable consequence of carrying out the plan to kill Mr Lasslett would be the need to kill anyone who should be present to witness the murder.
A shaved Samuel Fane at Christchurch police station following his arrest.
“The brothers demonstrated no hesitation about shooting those who got in their way.”
Lance also argued in his appeal there was insufficient evidence to prove Samuel knew his brother planned to kill Lasslett, referring to talk of going to “confront” Lasslett.
However, the Court of Appeal dismissed this argument. The brothers obtained two weapons and Lasslett was shot with bullets from both.
The Court also dismissed Lance’s argument the trial judge unfairly summed up the defence case.
“It is not suggested the judge’s observations regarding the state of the evidence were inaccurate, nor, importantly, that the questions he posed for the jury’s consideration were other than highly relevant issues properly identified to the jury for its consideration.”
Lance’s appeal of Samuel’s convictions failed on each count and according to the ruling, the sentence appeal was “almost entirely premised on him successfully challenging one of his murder convictions”.
“Having upheld Samuel’s convictions on both murder charges, we do not consider there is any basis to disturb the 17-year minimum period of imprisonment.
“The double homicide involved a high level of brutality and callousness.”
The appeal against the sentence was also dismissed.
“The murder of Mr Lasslett was a deliberate killing which Samuel was found to have intentionally assisted in the knowledge that was his brother’s intention. While the murder of Mr Littlewood lacked that high level of premeditation, it nevertheless was the product of a premeditated plan to kill another person to which Samuel was a party.
“These circumstances of the killings reinforced rather than detracted from the application of the 17-year minimum period of imprisonment, which cannot be held to have been manifestly unjust.”
