Legal Research
Cases
R v Kingi

R v Kingi

Case [2017] NZHC 1828 3 August 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2016-088-000386 [2017] NZHC 1828

THE QUEEN

v

KORONERIA KINGI

Hearing: 25 July 2017

Appearances:

M B Smith and J P Scott for Crown
B Sellars for Defendant

Judgment:

3 August 2017

JUDGMENT OF KATZ J

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 August 2017 at 3:00pm
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel: Marsden Woods Inskip & Smith, Crown Solicitor, Whangarei
B Sellars, Barrister, Auckland

R v KINGI [2017] NZHC 1828 [3 August 2017]

Introduction

[1] Koroneria Kingi is charged with murdering his brother-in-law, David Taniora, in Whangarei on 10 February 2016.

[2] Twenty years ago, on 20 July 1997, Mr Kingi murdered his wife in Australia. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years. He was deported to New Zealand on his release from an Australian prison in June 2008.

[3] The Crown has applied for an order that Mr Kingi’s Australian murder conviction be admitted as propensity evidence at his forthcoming trial. Mr Kingi opposes that application.

The Crown case

[4] I summarise the Crown case below, based primarily on the various witness statements on the court file. I note, however, that this does not include the DVD interview with Mr Taniora’s wife, Gwen Taniora, who apparently witnessed the killing.

[5] Mr Kingi is one of ten siblings. Their father, Hane Kingi, died in 2004. He left his children equal shares in a block of land at Ngaratunua, north of Whangarei.

[6] As at 2016 five of the siblings were living on the family land, in four separate houses. Mr Kingi’s sister Gwen lived with Mr Taniora in the original farm homestead. Mr Kingi lived in a tent towards the rear of the family land. He had discussed building a house on the family land with his siblings when he returned from Australia in 2008, and they had agreed to that. Mr Kingi would take showers and do laundry at the homestead, and also sleep inside sometimes, particularly if it was raining.

[7] In recent times Mr Kingi appears to have become increasingly dissatisfied with his living situation, and resentful of Gwen and her husband living in the family homestead. He told them and others that the land and the homestead were his.

[8] On the evening of 9 February 2016, Mr Taniora visited his brother-in-law Hori Kingi who also lived on the family land. The two men had quite a lot to drink, and Mr Taniora returned to the homestead late in the evening. It appears that, in his intoxicated state, he made quite a lot of noise when he returned home. This woke
Mr Kingi, who was sleeping at the homestead that…

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 Kingi

Details

AGLC: R v Kingi [2017] NZHC 1828
Case: [2017] NZHC 1828
Decision Date: 3 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Kingi, Koroneria Kingi is charged with the murder of his brother-in-law, David Taniora, in Whangarei on 10 February 2016. Twenty years prior, in 1997, Kingi had murdered his wife in Australia and was subsequently deported to New Zealand upon his release from an Australian prison in 2008. The Crown sought to admit Kingi's Australian murder conviction as propensity evidence at the forthcoming trial. The primary legal issue was whether this evidence should be admitted as it has a probative value in relation to the issue in dispute that outweighs the risk that the evidence may have an unfairly prejudicial effect on Kingi.

In considering this issue, the court found that the propensity evidence had a probative value in relation to the key issue in dispute, namely whether Kingi was acting in self-defence when he killed Taniora. The circumstances of the Australian murder showed that Kingi had previously reacted with explosive rage and lethal violence to intense family conflict. Although the frequency of prior incidents was low, the court found that it was relevant information that should be available to the jury in deciding whether the Crown had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, or whether Kingi was genuinely so fearful for his life that he had no option but to kill Taniora in order to protect himself.

The court directed that evidence relating to Kingi’s conviction in Australia for the murder of his wife, and the circumstances of that murder, was admissible in these proceedings. Counsel were to confer regarding the precise form and content of the propensity evidence to be adduced, and in the event that counsel were unable to agree, any dispute was to be resolved by the trial Judge.

Orders