Pahau v R

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 61/2011
[2011] NZSC 88

MATIU JOSEPH PAORA PAHAU

THE QUEEN

Court: Elias CJ, McGrath and William Young JJ

Counsel: S W Hughes QC for Applicant
J C Pike and M J Inwood for Crown

Judgment: 15 August 2011

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Leave to appeal against conviction and sentence is refused.

REASONS

The applicant, a senior member of Black Power, was convicted of the murder, by stabbing, of the member of a rival gang. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years.[1] The killing occurred when a group of Black Power members, including the applicant, pursued a group from the rival gang back to the house from which they had earlier come following an altercation initiated by the Black Power group. The deceased was stabbed by the applicant on the deck of the house while the deceased was trying to enter the house through an open window.
[1]R v Pahau HC New Plymouth CRI-2008-043-4555, 16 August 2010.
Leave is sought to appeal against both conviction and sentence.
The Court of Appeal [2]decided that it was open to the trial Judge not to give the jury a warning under s 122 concerning certain admissions that the applicant had made to another member of the group, Mr Murray, while in prison on remand. The Judge thought such a warning would risk the jury giving less than due weight to Murray’s evidence. He covered the criticisms made of Murray’s evidence in other ways in his address. As a result, the jury was clearly made aware it had to focus on the credibility of Mr Murray in considering the evidence. Overall we are satisfied that it is not arguable that the way the Judge handled this aspect of the trial gave rise to a miscarriage of justice. This disposes of the sole ground for the conviction appeal.
[2]Pahau v R [2011] NZCA 147.
On the sentence appeal, we accept the Court of Appeal’s view that the circumstances brought the offending of the applicant within s 104(1)(c) having regard to the concept of an unlawful entry into or presence in a dwelling place. We accept that there is a sanctuary purpose implicit in the term “dwelling-place” that will be of significance in marginal cases. The circumstances of the present case where the deceased was stabbed while he was in the course of getting to (relative) safety by climbing into the house do not in our view provide an arguable basis for challenging the conclusions of the Court of Appeal on the meaning and application of s 104(1)(c).
Giving leave to appeal would accordingly not serve the interests of justice. The application for leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case, Matitu Joseph Paora Pahau, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum of 17 years. He appealed both his conviction and sentence, arguing that the trial judge's handling of certain evidence led to a miscarriage of justice and that his sentence was too severe given the circumstances of the crime. The Supreme Court of New Zealand, comprising Elias CJ, McGrath, and William Young JJ, was tasked with determining whether the appeal should be granted. The court considered whether the trial judge's decision not to give a specific warning to the jury about certain admissions made by the applicant in prison, and the application of a particular section of the Crimes Act in sentencing, were grounds for allowing the appeal.

The court examined whether the trial judge's approach to the jury's consideration of evidence from another member of the Black Power group, who had heard the applicant's admissions in prison, was flawed. The judge had decided against giving a specific warning, fearing it might undermine the credibility of this witness. Instead, the judge focused on the witness's credibility in other ways, ensuring the jury was aware of the need to assess this evidence critically. The court concluded that the trial judge's handling of this evidence did not lead to a miscarriage of justice, as the jury was sufficiently directed on the importance of evaluating the witness's credibility.

In assessing the sentence, the court considered whether the judge's application of the statute concerning unlawful entry into a dwelling place was correct. The court accepted that there is a protective element inherent in the concept of a dwelling place, which is significant in borderline cases. However, the circumstances of this case, where the deceased was stabbed while attempting to enter the house, did not, in the court's view, provide a basis to challenge the Court of Appeal's interpretation and application of the relevant statute. The court determined that granting leave to appeal would not serve the interests of justice.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against both the conviction and the sentence.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established