Legal Research
Cases
R v Filoa

R v Filoa

Case [2022] NZHC 2461 27 September 2022

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Self-Defence

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-004-4580

[2022] NZHC 2461

THE KING

v

MICHAEL FILOA

Hearing: 27 September 2022

Appearances:

B H Dickey and S M Murphy for the Crown

D Niven, J N Olsen and A Gruebner for the Defendant

Judgment:

27 September 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF HARVEY J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Meredith Connell, Auckland David Niven, Barrister, Auckland
John Munro, Barrister, Auckland (J N Olsen) (A Gruebner)

R v FILOA [2022] NZHC 2461 [27 September 2022]

Introduction

[1] Michael Filoa, at the age of 32, you appear this morning for sentence having been found guilty by a jury of the murder of Clifford Umuhuri. You will be aware that the maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.

The facts

[2] Mr Filoa, you will know what happened on 31 May and 1 June 2020 better than most. However, it is important that I address the facts during this sentencing since the law requires that it must be undertaken in public, and that I refer to those facts that are directly relevant when setting the sentence that will be imposed. I will therefore refer in this sentencing to parts of the evidence given at trial.

[3] The events that took place on 1 June 2020 will not easily be forgotten by you or by everyone else connected with the case. On 31 May 2020, your associate, Aaron Davis, wished to sell methamphetamine to someone he knew, Beatrice Gage. She was looking to purchase for herself as well as for her brother, Hayden Gage, and Mr Umuhuri. Ms Gage’s request to Mr Davis was made late on 31 May 2020. The agreed amount for purchase was 14 grams and the price was $4,500. Mr Davis then contacted you and collected you from your address to go with him to complete the deal. You armed yourself with a .22 cut-down sawn off gun.

[4] You both met Ms Gage, Mr Gage, Gary Campbell, their driver, and Mr Umuhuri at a supermarket carpark in Panmure early on the morning of 1 June 2020. It was decided that that location was not suitable to complete the deal. It was then agreed between you and Mr Davis on the one hand and Ms Gage and her associates on the other, that they would follow you both to an alternative location. That group then followed you both to an address in St Johns, Auckland. There was no particular significance about the address, and it appears to have selected quite randomly.

[5] Ms Gage then alighted from Mr Campbell’s vehicle and spoke through Mr Davis’ car window to confirm that the deal would proceed. The exchange continued that it was preferable for Mr Umuhuri, as the purchaser, to get out of Mr Campbell’s car, into Mr Davis’ vehicle to complete the deal.

[6] Mr Umuhuri then left Mr Campbell’s car and got into the rear of Mr Davis’ vehicle next to you. You were sitting behind…

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 R v Filoa

Details

AGLC: R v Filoa [2022] NZHC 2461
Case: [2022] NZHC 2461
Decision Date: 27 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Filoa, the defendant, Michael Filoa, was convicted of the murder of Clifford Umuhuri and faced sentencing before the High Court of New Zealand. The central legal issue was whether the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for murder should apply, or if the circumstances warranted a departure from that presumption. The defendant claimed he acted in excessive self-defence against an aggressive victim, and argued a finite sentence was warranted. The Crown argued the threshold for displacing the presumption of life imprisonment was high and not met in this case.

The Court found that the facts did not establish that a life sentence would be manifestly unjust. While the defendant claimed self-defence, the Court noted that the jury must have found the force used was excessive. The aggravating features of the offending, such as the use of a weapon and the extent of harm caused, outweighed any mitigating factors. The Court determined that a minimum period of imprisonment of ten years and six months was appropriate, reflecting the purposes of sentencing and the defendant's personal circumstances.

In conclusion, the Court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment for the murder of Clifford Umuhuri, with a minimum period of imprisonment of ten years and six months. The defendant must serve that minimum term before becoming eligible for parole. The Court found that the circumstances did not warrant a departure from the presumption of a life sentence for murder.

Orders