Key Takeaways
- Oldridge admitted a single charge of injuring with intent to injure after her partner Dean Kahukiwa was shot five times in their Foxton home in September 2023.
- The September 2023 sentencing imposed six months’ community detention with a nightly curfew and 24 months of intensive supervision, avoiding jail for a young first‑time offender.
- Text messages in which Oldridge asked her uncle to “smash this c***” were shown to have triggered the violence, though she claimed she did not anticipate serious injury or death.
- Within months of the sentence, Oldridge breached curfew and supervision requirements nearly daily, leading Corrections to seek cancellation of the community order.
- After failing to appear for a scheduled resentencing in February, she was arrested and held in custody; her lawyer acknowledged she had not engaged with available support and was struggling with anxiety, grief, and stress.
- The prosecution argued for imprisonment; Justice Grau cancelled the intensive supervision order and sentenced Oldridge to 14 months’ imprisonment, with automatic release after serving half.
- The judge expressed sadness at imposing a custodial sentence but urged rehabilitation and a better future post‑release.
- Catherine Hutton, an Open Justice reporter based in Wellington, covered the case; she has experience at the Waikato Times, RNZ, and the Ministry of Justice.
Background of the Incident
Dean Kahukiwa, a 32‑year‑old man, was found dead in his Foxton, Horowhenua residence after being shot five times in September 2023. His body remained undiscovered for nine days until firefighters responded to a blaze at the property on Reeve Street. Police investigations revealed that the shooting was carried out in retaliation for an alleged assault Kahukiwa had perpetrated against his partner, Oldridge. The case quickly garnered public attention due to the brutal nature of the killing and the involvement of multiple accomplices, ultimately resulting in five individuals being sentenced in connection with Kahukiwa’s death.
Legal Charge and Initial Sentencing
Oldridge pleaded guilty to one count of injuring with intent to injure, a charge directly linked to Kahukiwa’s shooting. In acknowledgment of her guilty plea and her status as a first‑time offender, Justice Grau opted for a community‑based sanction rather than incarceration. The September sentence comprised six months of community detention, which included a nightly curfew, coupled with 24 months of intensive supervision. The judge emphasized that the goal was to provide Oldridge with an opportunity for rehabilitation while holding her accountable for her role in the violence.
Details of Oldridge’s Text Messages
Central to the prosecution’s case were text messages Oldridge sent to her aunt, in which she urged her uncle, William Hines, to “smash this c***”. The Crown presented these messages as evidence that Oldridge had actively solicited violence against Kahukiwa, framing the shooting as an act of retribution for the alleged domestic abuse she suffered. Although Oldridge maintained that she had only intended for Kahukiwa to be beaten—not killed or seriously injured—the messages demonstrated a clear intent to facilitate physical harm, which the court considered when assessing culpability.
Sentencing Rationale by Justice Grau
At the September sentencing hearing, Justice Grau acknowledged that Oldridge’s texts revealed a desire to see her partner harmed, yet she accepted the defence’s argument that Oldridge did not anticipate the shooting would result in serious injury or death. The judge weighed Oldridge’s youth, lack of prior convictions, and the potential for rehabilitation against the seriousness of the offending conduct. Consequently, she imposed the community detention and intensive supervision order, explicitly warning that any breach of the conditions would trigger a custodial sentence.
Non‑Compliance and Escalation
Shortly after the community sentence was imposed, Oldridge began to violate its terms. Reports from Corrections indicated that her breaches started infrequently but rapidly escalated to “nearly daily” infractions, including curfew violations and failures to attend supervision appointments. The pattern of non‑compliance prompted Corrections to file an application to cancel the community detention and intensive supervision order, and to charge Oldridge with the alleged breaches. The escalation underscored the inability of the community‑based sentence to secure her adherence to court‑ordered conditions.
Failure to Appear for Resentencing
Because of the mounting breaches, a resentencing hearing was scheduled for February. Oldridge failed to appear at that hearing, prompting the issuance of a warrant for her arrest. Following her apprehension later that month, she has remained in custody while awaiting the resentencing process. Her absence from the February proceeding was cited by the prosecution as further evidence of her disregard for the court’s authority and the conditions originally set for her rehabilitation.
Lawyer’s Mitigation Arguments
Oldridge’s counsel, Tavia Moore, conceded that a community‑based sentence was no longer a viable option given theclient’s track record of non‑compliance. Moore outlined that Oldridge had experienced significant anxiety and stress stemming from the events surrounding Kahukiwa’s death, which had hindered her ability to engage with the support services offered under the supervision order. Moore emphasized that her client now recognized she had not made the best use of the opportunities provided and was also grappling with grief and the psychological toll of losing her partner.
Prosecution’s Push for Imprisonment
Representing the Crown, lawyer Daniel Becker argued that the community detention and intensive supervision orders had failed to achieve their rehabilitative purpose and should be terminated. Becker urged Justice Grau to replace those sanctions with a term of imprisonment, contending that a custodial sentence was necessary to uphold the seriousness of the offending, deter future breaches, and protect public safety. The prosecution highlighted the repeated and persistent nature of Oldridge’s violations as justification for a more punitive response.
Final Judgment and Sentence
Justice Grau accepted the prosecution’s position, cancelling the intensive supervision component of the original sentence. She imposed a determinate term of 14 months’ imprisonment, noting that Oldridge would be automatically released after serving half of that period—approximately seven months—provided she meets standard parole conditions. The judge’s decision reflected a balance between holding Oldridge accountable for her actions and acknowledging the rehabilitative intent that had initially guided the sentencing.
Judge’s Remarks and Outlook
In concluding the hearing, Justice Grau expressed personal sorrow at having to send a young woman to prison, stating, “I hope you get some assistance and rehabilitation, and, when you leave prison, you can put all this behind you and work towards a better life.” Her remarks underscored the dual objectives of the criminal justice system: to sanction harmful conduct while also encouraging pathways toward redemption and reintegration. The judge’s tone signaled that, despite the custodial outcome, she remained open to Oldridge’s potential for change if she avails herself of rehabilitative resources during incarceration.
About the Reporter Catherine Hutton
The article was authored by Catherine Hutton, an Open Justice reporter based in Wellington. Hutton’s journalism career includes stints at the Waikato Times and RNZ, and most recently she served as a media adviser at the Ministry of Justice. Her background in legal and justice reporting equips her to provide nuanced coverage of court proceedings, ensuring that readers receive accurate and contextualized information about cases such as Oldridge’s.