Laulu v Attorney-General - [2016] NZHC 3202

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2016-404-000875 [2016] NZHC 3202

BETWEEN
TAPU MAHENDARA LAULU

Plaintiff

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL Defendant

Hearing: 14 October 2016

Appearances:

C J Tennet and T N A Bowman for the Plaintiff
N E Copeland for the Defendant

Judgment:

23 December 2016

JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

This judgment is delivered by me on 23 December 2016 at 1.30 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

..................................................... Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:
C J Tennet, Barrister, Wellington
Hickey Law, Auckland
Meredith Connell, Auckland

LAULU v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2016] NZHC 3202 [23 December 2016]

Summary

[1] On 2 March 2016 Judge Ronayne in the District Court refused Mr Tapu Laulu leave to withdraw his guilty plea to a charge of obtaining by deception. The Judge considered the defence Mr Laulu now wanted to offer, compared with his earlier confession, was neither tenable, credible nor reasonably arguable. Mr Laulu applies for judicial review of that decision on the basis it did not take into account relevant evidence, it applied the wrong legal test and failed to consider a particular case. I do not uphold any of these challenges. I decline the application.

Facts

[2] Mr Laulu was approved by Child, Youth and Family (CYF) to provide care in a CYF Family Home supporting the primary home caregiver, Ms Kimi Rewi. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) deposited approximately $2,500 per fortnight in Ms Rewi’s bank account to cover expenses of caring for the children.

Charges and plea

[3] On 11 December 2014 and 1 October 2015 Mr Laulu was interviewed by the Internal Fraud Unit of MSD and a Police Constable respectively. At the first interview Mr Laulu admitted he had transferred money, paid by MSD to Ms Rewi, into his own account for online gambling purposes. He explained the mechanics of the transfers and gambling payments. In the second interview Mr Laulu confirmed the transcript of the first interview and also explained he had used Ms Rewi’s EFTPOS card. Mr Laulu’s rights were explained to him on both occasions and he had the opportunity to speak with a lawyer but did not do so.

[4] On 30 October 2015, represented by counsel, Mr Laulu pleaded guilty to a charge of obtaining by deception under ss 240(1)(a) and 241(a) of the Crimes Act
1961. Before doing so he read the Summary of Facts and received advice from counsel regarding sentencing. The Summary of Facts stated that, from 26 October
2013 to 15 May 2014, Mr Laulu used $13,242.91 to make payments from Ms Rewi’s

bank account to Facebook and Google Play and from 11 June 2014 to 24 October

2014 he transferred $10,683.50 from Ms Rewi’s account to his own bank account

(transferring back only $666.25). Repayment of $23,260.16 was sought by way of reparation.

Application to withdraw guilty plea

[5] Later, however, Mr Laulu claimed he had taken the rap for something he had not done. On 3 December 2015 he applied to the District…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Laulu v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Laulu v Attorney-General [2016] NZHC 3202
Case: [2016] NZHC 3202
Decision Date: 23 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was asked to review a decision made by the District Court, which refused Mr Tapu Laulu's application to withdraw his guilty plea to a charge of obtaining by deception. Mr Laulu claimed he had wrongly pleaded guilty under pressure and now had a defence to the charge. The court was required to decide whether the District Court failed to take evidence into account, applied the wrong legal test, or failed to consider a particular case. The court found that the District Court did not err in its assessment of the evidence or the legal test applied, and it had considered the interests of justice in refusing Mr Laulu's application.

The court held that the District Court was not required to refer to all the evidence before it and that there was no evidence that would justify overturning the decision. The court also found that the District Court considered it had to assess whether the defence existed and whether it had any realistic prospects of success. The court rejected the argument that the District Court failed to consider the case of R v Turrall, as the decision was based on ensuring no one was wrongfully convicted. The court found it was open to the District Court to conclude that Mr Laulu's defence was not tenable based on a detailed comparison of his admissions and the documentary evidence.

The High Court declined the application for judicial review, finding that the District Court's decision was not unreasonable. The court made no costs award as Mr Laulu was legally aided. This case highlights the importance of ensuring that a defendant has a credible and arguable defence when applying to withdraw a guilty plea, and that the court must consider the interests of justice in making its decision.

Orders