[2] At 2.00 am on 11 October 2015 a violent incident occurred in a central Wellington street. The protagonists were Losi Filipo, then aged 17 and Sam Filipo, his 18 year old brother.

[3] The four victims were two women and two men of a similar age to the Filipo brothers.

[4] The four victims were walking along a footpath. The Filipo brothers were on the opposite side of the road. They crossed the road at which point Sam Filipo yelled to the victims who ignored him and kept walking. The Filipo brothers followed the victims, challenging them to a fight. The victims said they did not want
to fight.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 189(2).
2      Section 193.
3      Section 194(b).

[5] Losi Filipo then stood in front of Gregory Morgan, the first victim. Losi Filipo grabbed Gregory Morgan by the collar with one hand and with his other fist he punched Gregory Morgan to the ground. Gregory Morgan was knocked unconscious. While he lay on the ground Losi Filipo stomped on Gregory Morgan’s head about four times.

[6] Losi Filipo then shoved Olivia Samuel, the second victim in her throat, causing her to lose balance and fall to the ground. The third victim, Kelsey Odell, was then struck on her chin by Losi Filipo. She fell to the ground.

[7] Sam Filipo had by this stage punched the fourth victim, Hayden Williams, in his eye. They then traded punches. There was a pause in their fighting after which Sam Filipo grabbed Hayden Williams and partially restrained him while Losi Filipo punched Hayden Williams in the head.

Victims’ injuries

[8] Gregory Morgan was taken to hospital by ambulance and kept there till later that morning. His victim impact statement explains he had to take six months off work. He suffered bruising, scratches and severe concussion. He had been a promising rugby player. He has been told…

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 Police v Filipo

Details

AGLC: Police v Filipo [2016] NZHC 2573
Case: [2016] NZHC 2573
Decision Date: 27 October 2016 at 3.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Police v Filipo involved an appeal by the New Zealand Police against the decision of the District Court to discharge Losi Filipo without conviction following his involvement in a violent street assault. The appeal raised several questions regarding the legal correctness of the District Court's decision and the potential consequences of a conviction for Filipo. The key issues included whether the District Court erred in law by failing to properly assess the gravity of the offence and the potential consequences of a conviction, and whether the appeal should be granted and what should be done if it were allowed.

The court found that the District Court had indeed erred in law by not adequately considering certain aspects of the gravity of the offence, particularly the seriousness of Filipo's attacks on the victims, including stomping on an unconscious victim's head. Additionally, the court held that the District Court had overstated the adverse consequences of a conviction for Filipo, particularly in relation to his prospects of pursuing a professional rugby career. The court concluded that the appeal should be allowed because the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction were not out of proportion to the gravity of the offence.

As a result of the appeal being allowed, the discharge without conviction was set aside. The court opted to allow Filipo the opportunity to vacate his guilty plea if he wished, and if he did so, the case would be remitted back to the District Court for trial. The hearing was resumed to determine the next steps, including whether any sentencing should occur in the High Court.

Orders