Pora v The King - [2025] NZCA 255

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA716/2024
[2025] NZCA 255

BETWEEN	JOVAN AROHA ZACHARIAH PORA Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	3 April 2025
Court:	Woolford, Brewer and Gault JJ
Counsel:	V J Feyen and M A Edgar for Appellant C P Howard for Respondent
Judgment:	17 June 2025 at 11:30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Brewer J)

Introduction

In the small hours of 26 December 2022, Mr Pora drove his car from his girlfriend’s family home (the house) onto State Highway 20. His girlfriend, Ms Rua‑Tuhou, was in the car also. About five minutes after leaving the address, Mr Pora lost control of his car and it crashed. Ms Rua‑Tuhou was killed.
Mr Pora was tried on charges of kidnapping Ms Rua‑Tuhou, her manslaughter and refusing an officer’s request for blood. The jury found him guilty of the kidnapping and refusing an officer’s request for blood charges and not guilty of the manslaughter.[1]
[1]Mr Pora had earlier pleaded guilty to one charge of driving while license revoked. Downs J sentenced Mr Pora to 12 months’ home detention on the kidnapping charge and disqualified him from driving for six months on the driving charges: R v Pora [2024] NZHC 2951 [sentencing notes].
Mr Pora now appeals his conviction on the charge of kidnapping. He submits that, having regard to the evidence, the jury’s verdict was unreasonable.[2]
[2]Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 232(2)(a).
A verdict will be unreasonable if, having regard to all the evidence, the jury could not reasonably have been satisfied to the required standard that the defendant was guilty.[3] The test is whether the verdict reached was in fact reasonably available on the evidence, allowing for the fact that the weight given to individual pieces of evidence is essentially a jury function and that reasonable minds may disagree on matters of fact.[4]
[3]R v Owen [2007] NZSC 102, [2008] 2 NZLR 37 at [17].
[4]At [13].
The trial judge, Downs J, set out the elements of kidnapping, which the Crown had to prove beyond reasonable doubt, in a question trail which he provided to the jury. The jury’s task was to answer the questions having considered the relevant evidence. We reproduce that part of the question trail:
Charge 2: kidnapping (or unlawful taking away)
Are you sure:
1. Jovan Pora took Katelyn Rua‑Tuhou away?
If no, find Mr Pora not guilty of this charge.
If yes, go to question 2.
2.        That taking away was unlawful?
If no, find Mr Pora not guilty of this charge.
If yes, go to question 3.
3.        Ms Rua‑Tuhou did not consent to being taken away?
If no, find Mr Pora not guilty of this charge.
If yes, go to question 4.
4.        Mr Pora knew Ms Rua‑Tuhou did not consent to being taken away?
If no, find Mr Pora not guilty of this charge.
If yes, go to question 5.
5.…

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 Pora v The King

Details

AGLC: Pora v The King [2025] NZCA 255
Case: [2025] NZCA 255
Decision Date: 17 June 2025 at 11:30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jovan Aroha Zachariah Pora appeals against his conviction for kidnapping Katelyn Rua-Tuhou, arguing that the jury's verdict was unreasonable given the evidence presented. The Court of Appeal considered the legal issue of whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable, given that the jury's role is to weigh evidence and draw inferences. The appeal hinged on whether there was sufficient evidence to prove the physical and mental elements of kidnapping. The trial judge outlined the elements of kidnapping, which the Crown had to prove beyond reasonable doubt, in a question trail provided to the jury. The Court found that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to reasonably find the charge of kidnapping proved, including the testimony of witnesses who saw Ms Rua-Tuhou in the car against her will. The Court also rejected arguments that Ms Rua-Tuhou's level of intoxication or the short duration of the incident meant that the jury could not be sure of her state of mind or that the offence was trifling. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction for kidnapping stands.

Orders