Legal Research
Cases
Pulemoana v R

Pulemoana v R

Case [2019] NZCA 293 9 July 2019

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA29/2019
[2019] NZCA 293

BETWEEN	ZEN PULEMOANA Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	13 June 2019
Court:	Brown, Wylie and Moore JJ
Counsel:	M A Simpkins and E L Reilly for appellant K S Grau for Respondent
Judgment:	9 July 2019 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Moore J)

Introduction

On 7 August 2017 Raymond Fleet and his nephew, James Fleet, were killed in a remote rural area near Rotorua. Each was beaten to death with a spade wielded by Martin Hone. Before trial Mr Hone pleaded guilty to their murders.
Three other men were charged in relation to the Fleets’ deaths. These were Richard Te Kani, Zen Pulemoana and Mikaere Hura.
Before trial Richard Te Kani pleaded guilty to two charges of manslaughter.
Zen Pulemoana and Mikaere Hura each faced two charges of murder. They pleaded not guilty and went to trial before Fitzgerald J in the High Court at Rotorua.
On 2 November 2018 the jury delivered guilty verdicts in respect of Mr Pulemoana and Mr Hura:
(a)Mr Pulemoana was found guilty of the murder of James Fleet and the manslaughter of Raymond Fleet; and
(b)Mr Hura was found guilty of manslaughter on both charges.
Mr Pulemoana appeals only his murder conviction. He advances the following three grounds.
(a)The jury heard inadmissible hearsay evidence from a Crown witness, Nathan Gray. That evidence was unfairly prejudicial and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
(b)One of the jurors was connected to James Fleet’s mother. He should have been discharged because the connection may have influenced the verdict.
(c)The conviction in respect of James Fleet was unreasonable because it was inconsistent with the manslaughter verdict for Mr Hura whose case was all but identical.
On 29 November 2018 Davison J sentenced Mr Te Kani to 15 years’ imprisonment.[1] Mr Te Kani appeals that sentence. Although we heard both appeals together this judgment deals only with Mr Pulemoana’s conviction appeal.
[1]R v Te Kani [2018] NZHC 3134. He was also sentenced for charges of being an accessory after the fact to murder, manufacturing methamphetamine and neglecting a child.
This is because Mr Te Kani’s sentence appeal also involves a consideration of his involvement in a related methamphetamine manufacturing enterprise. It is possible this Court’s reconsideration of R v Fatu[2] in Zhang v R[3] will assume relevance on the sentence appeal. After enquiry from the Court, Mr Te Kani elected to proceed on the scheduled hearing date but reserve the right to file further submissions once the decision in Zhang is released.
[2]R v Fatu [2006] 2 NZLR 72 (CA).
[3]Zhang v R CA606/2018.
As a consequence judgment on the sentence appeal will be deferred pending the delivery of the decision in Zhang with leave reserved for Mr Schulze to file a further submission subsequently. The following timetabling orders are made:
(a)Mr…

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 Pulemoana v R

Details

AGLC: Pulemoana v R [2019] NZCA 293
Case: [2019] NZCA 293
Decision Date: 9 July 2019 at 11.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pulemoana appeals against his conviction of the murder of James Fleet and the manslaughter of Raymond Fleet. He argues that the trial judge erred in admitting inadmissible hearsay evidence, that she should have discharged a juror who had a connection to the victim's mother, and that the verdicts are inconsistent. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It found that the inadvertent admission of inadmissible evidence did not result in a miscarriage of justice. It found that there was no basis to discharge the juror. It found that the verdicts were reconcilable on the evidence.

Orders