Legal Research
Cases
Pukeroa v R

Pukeroa v R

Case [2013] NZCA 305 18 July 2013

Admissibility of Evidence

Expert Evidence

Compensatory Damages

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA886/2010
[2013] NZCA 305

BETWEEN	QUENTIN DUANE PUKEROA Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	10 and 11 June 2013
Court:	O’Regan P, Miller and MacKenzie JJ
Counsel:	R M Lithgow QC for Appellant M F Laracy and J E Mildenhall for Respondent
Judgment:	18 July 2013 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

BThe appeal against sentence is allowed, to the extent that the minimum period of 15 years is quashed and a minimum period of 13 years is substituted.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by MacKenzie J)

Introduction

The appellant was convicted on one count of murder, two counts of aggravated burglary, one count of injuring with intent to injure one count of attempted murder, and one count of participating in an organised criminal group, following trial before Wylie J and a jury in the High Court at Rotorua in October and November 2010. On 10 December 2010 he was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum parole period of 15 years.[1] He appeals against both conviction and sentence.

Facts

[1]R v Pukeroa HC Rotorua CRI-2009-063-697, 10 December 2010.

On 27 January 2009 several members of the Mongrel Mob gang, including the appellant, travelled from Kawerau to Murupara to attend a tangi. Tensions developed between that group and members of the Tribesmen gang living in Murupara. At about 8.30 that evening the appellant and another Mongrel Mob member were assaulted by a group of five or six Tribesmen members, including brothers Mahu and Jamie Herewini. The appellant was punched, thrown to the ground, and kicked and hit a number of times on the head with the blunt side of an axe. His Nissan truck was stolen. Unbeknown to the appellant, it was subsequently set on fire and pushed over a cliff.
The appellant was assisted by an associate and rejoined other Mongrel Mob members at a nearby property. A number of Mongrel Mob members armed themselves with a variety of weapons and got into vehicles. They travelled around Murupara in a convoy searching for the appellant’s truck and for those involved in the assault. They saw a Tribesmen gang member, Iwi Delamere, and chased him in their vehicles back to his home at 43 Matai Street. He escaped over the back fence leaving his partner and baby in the house. Several Mongrel Mob members went onto the property and used their weapons to smash windows in the house and to damage vehicles. Some entered the house where they smashed a mirror and tipped over furniture.
The Mongrel Mob members then left 43 Matai Street and travelled to 10 Matai Street where the Herewini brothers lived. Mahu and Jamie were present when the group arrived, armed with sticks and pieces of wood. The appellant exchanged abuse with them. He and other Mongrel Mob members then went onto the property and some of them smashed windows. The Herewini brothers ran from their property as…

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 Pukeroa v R

Details

AGLC: Pukeroa v R [2013] NZCA 305
Case: [2013] NZCA 305
Decision Date: 18 July 2013 at 10 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Quentin Duane Pukeroa appealed against his conviction on one count of murder, two counts of aggravated burglary, one count of injuring with intent to injure, one count of attempted murder, and one count of participating in an organised criminal group, as well as his sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum parole period of 15 years. The appeal against conviction focused on the murder charge, with the defence arguing that the trial did not adequately consider the possibility of a verdict of manslaughter rather than murder. The Crown argued that the unlawful act was an assault with a weapon, the vehicle, and that the appellant had murderous intent. The defence argued that the appellant's actions did not establish an intention to assault, and that if the appellant's use of the vehicle constituted an unlawful act, it was as an instrument to cause property damage rather than as a weapon to assault. The Court held that the trial adequately considered the possibility of a manslaughter verdict, and dismissed the appeal against conviction. The appeal against sentence focused on the minimum term imposed, with the defence arguing that a minimum period of 10 years would have been appropriate for the murder, and that no uplift to that minimum period could be imposed for the other offending. The Court held that the totality of the offending, including the other serious offences, justified an uplift of five years, but that an allowance of two years to reflect the provocation arising from the offending against the appellant should have been made. The Court allowed the appeal against sentence, quashed the minimum period of 15 years, and substituted a minimum period of 13 years.

Orders