R v Lama

Case [2025] NZHC 2059 30 July 2025

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-2023-004-004331

[2025] NZHC 2059

THE KING

v

ISRAEL LAMA SAMUEL LAMA SEFILINO FULI LAMA

HARMON MARCELLUS MATILA UNASA JADE JEROME

NATHAN LAURIE TIMOTHY TUAITI

Hearing: 30 July 2025 and 1 August 2025

Counsel:

HDL Steele and PR McNabb for Crown MA Edgar for Defendant Israel Lama

SM Kilian and K Bergh for Defendant Samuel Lama (sentenced 1 August 2025)

VJ Feyen for Defendant Sefilino Lama JS Kovacevich for Defendant Unasa ID Tucker for Defendant Jerome

AG Speed and J-AE Tulloch for Defendant Tuaiti

Judgment:

30 July 2025

SENTENCING REMARKS OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland. Tucker & Co, Auckland.
Richmond Legal Service, Auckland. MA Edgar, Auckland.
VJ Feyen, Auckland.
SM Kilian, Auckland.
K Bergh, Auckland.
JS Kovacevich, Auckland.
AG Speed, Auckland.

R v LAMA [2025] NZHC 2059 [30 July 2025]

A note to readers

[1] I sentenced five of the defendants on Wednesday, 30 July 2025: Israel Lama and Sefilino Lama at 10 am; Jade Jerome and Harmon Unasa at midday; and Nathan Tuaiti at 2.15 pm. I sentenced a sixth defendant, Samuel Lama, on Friday, 1 August 2025 (to accommodate a fixture clash in relation to his lawyer). This lightly edited document draws together, in one place, my sentencing remarks from those four occasions.1 My reasoning is, of course, unchanged.

[2]Israel Lama, Samuel Lama, and Sefilino Lama are brothers.

Charges

[3] Israel Lama is for sentence for kidnapping,2 two offences of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm,3 two of injuring with intent to injure,4 and one of assault with a weapon.5

[4] Samuel Lama is for sentence for kidnapping, two offences of injuring with intent to injure, and one of assault with a weapon.

[5] Sefilino Lama is for sentence for kidnapping, one offence of injuring with intent to injure, and one of assault with a weapon.

[6] Mr Unasa, Mr Tuaiti and Mr Jerome are for sentence for kidnapping, two offences of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, two of injuring with intent to injure, and one of assault with a weapon. Mr Jerome is also for sentence on an additional offence of assault with a weapon.

Background

[7]The facts are disturbing.

1      These remarks reference the defendants in the third person, whereas I spoke directly to all at sentencing.
2      Crimes Act 1961, ss 66 and 209: maximum penalty; 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act, ss 66 and 188(1): maximum penalty; 14 years’ imprisonment.
4      Crimes Act, ss 66 and 189(1): maximum penalty; 10 years’ imprisonment.
5      Crimes Act, ss 66 and 202C: maximum penalty; five years’ imprisonment.

[8] In the early hours of Sunday, 28 May 2023, the victim, who has permanent name suppression and whom I call X, was in the Auckland CBD. X had been socialising with friends. At some point, he encountered the girlfriend of Israel Lama and slapped her on the bottom. Israel Lama took exception to that.

[9]…

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 Lama

Details

AGLC: R v Lama [2025] NZHC 2059
Case: [2025] NZHC 2059
Decision Date: 30 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the High Court of New Zealand involved six defendants: Israel Lama, Samuel Lama, Sefilino Lama, Harmon Unasa, Jade Jerome, and Nathan Tuaiti. They were charged with multiple offences, including kidnapping, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, injuring with intent to injure, and assault with a weapon, arising from a disturbing incident where a victim, referred to as X, was kidnapped, tortured, and assaulted over a period of approximately 19 to 20 hours. The court had to determine the appropriate sentences for each defendant, considering various aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court identified several aggravating factors, including the extreme violence and premeditation involved, the use of multiple weapons, the situational vulnerability of the victim, and the gang affiliations of some defendants. The court also considered the victim's severe psychological harm, which was highlighted in the victim impact statement. The court noted that while gang involvement was a factor, it was not the primary aggravating consideration.

For sentencing, the court established starting points for each defendant based on the gravity of their involvement and the maximum penalties for the offences. Israel Lama received a starting point of 13 years due to his leadership role and the severity of his actions. Mr Unasa, Mr Jerome, and Mr Tuaiti, who were active participants, received a starting point of 11 years. Samuel Lama and Sefilino Lama received lower starting points due to their lesser involvement and, in Sefilino Lama's case, his age.

The court then applied various discounts for factors such as guilty pleas, remorse, youth, and time spent on electronically monitored bail. The discounts were not automatic and were carefully considered in light of the seriousness of the offending. The court also made adjustments for totality, considering sentences the defendants were already serving for unrelated offences.

The final sentences ranged from nine years and six months for Israel Lama to 19 months for Sefilino Lama, with Sefilino Lama receiving home detention instead of imprisonment due to his age and rehabilitative progress. The court also imposed minimum periods of imprisonment for the most serious charges to ensure community protection and deterrence.

Orders