His entry into the country is also sealed by the courts – likely because the Christchurch Muslim is another refugee!! Click his tag below for other articles on his time in NZ.
The killer of Christchurch woman Renee Duckmanton wants a year trimmed from the 18 years he must serve before he can be considered for parole from his life sentence.
Sainey Marong strangled Duckmanton, a sex worker, and set fire to her body on the side of a road near Rakaia in May 2016.
He has already tried unsuccessfully to appeal against his conviction.
The Court of Appeal on Wednesday reserved its decision on his appeal against the 18-year minimum term tagged to his life sentence.
However his lawyer, Craig Ruane, conceded that 17 years was an appropriate minimum term.
Ruane said the sentencing judge, Justice Cameron Mander, had not given reasons for adding the year to the standard 17-year minimum for murders that have aggravating circumstances such as victim vulnerability, calculated or lengthy planning, particularly callous killing, or any other exceptional circumstances.
Ruane said the circumstances related to the murder and the time leading up to it, but could not take into account Marong’s actions in setting fire to the body. Disrespect for the body did not make the killing itself more depraved.
The slightly-built Duckmanton’s movement was limited on one side due to cerebral palsy, although it was not clear whether that would have been apparent to Marong, he said.
Marong’s attitude to women and prostitutes, who he described as being like the meat he saw in his work as a butcher, showed a lack of empathy and he could not claim any allowance for remorse, Ruane said.
For the Crown, Sean Mallett said Marong’s internet searches in the weeks and months leading up to the murder were clearly focussed on killing a Christchurch prostitute and how he could avoid detection. It was calculated and lengthy planning.
The callousness of his actions with the body afterwards could also count towards setting the minimum jail time, Mallett said.
He agreed that the judge did not detail his reasons for setting 18 years instead of 17, but 18 years was appropriate.