R v Laupama - [2022] NZHC 3312

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2022-043-000937

[2022] NZHC 3312

THE KING

v

HAMIORA LAUPAMA

Hearing: 2 December 2022

Counsel:

J M Marinovich for the Crown J C Hannam for the Defendant

Judgment:

2 December 2022

ORAL JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

Introduction

[1] The defendant, Mr Hamiora Laupama, has pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to murder.1 I am now to impose sentence.

Factual basis to the offending

[2] The summary of facts is before the Court and has been accepted by the defendant as an accurate account of the events. The following is by way of summary.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 71 and 176 — maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

R v LAUPAMA [2022] NZHC 3312 [2 December 2022]

[3] On the evening of 3 August 2022, Mr Laupama was driven to an address on South Road, New Plymouth, where he met Turanganui John (TJ) Ormsby-Turner and another person. The reason for meeting there was to pick up another associate, the victim’s brother, Jahrim Mataira, to then collectively go and “tax” someone who owed TJ Ormsby-Turner money. All are members of the Mongrel Mob, and TJ Ormsby- Turner is the president of the West Coast Chapter of the Mongrel Mob.

[4] While Mr Laupama, TJ and the other person were sitting in a car at the address, Mr Mataira and the victim arrived in the victim’s car. TJ and the other person became agitated when they saw the victim due to his affiliation with a rival gang, Uru Taha, and the fact there had been issues between the two gangs. However, given it was Mr Mataira’s house and the fact they had been around Mr Mataira when the victim had been there previously and nothing had happened, Mr Laupama believed there would be no issue.

[5] Shortly thereafter, however, Mr Laupama and the victim crossed paths at the house, at which time there was an exchange of words between the two, and Mr Laupama thought they were going to have a fight. The two walked towards one another and the victim aimed a punch at Mr Laupama but missed. TJ Ormsby-Turner moved from behind the victim and stabbed the victim once in the torso with a large black hunting knife. The other person then attacked the victim with a claw hammer.

[6] Mr Mataira intervened to stop the attack and carried the victim to the victim’s car. The victim’s partner drove Mr Mataira and the victim to the hospital, where the victim was pronounced dead.

[7] At the South Road address, TJ Ormsby-Turner then instructed Mr Laupama and the other person to get rid of their own car and several items, including their clothes and the knife. Mr Laupama drove the car to the East End Reserve, New Plymouth, where the two attempted unsuccessfully to bury the victim’s hat, before throwing the knife and items of clothing from a bridge into the Te…

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 Laupama

Details

AGLC: R v Laupama [2022] NZHC 3312
Case: [2022] NZHC 3312
Decision Date: 2 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Laupama was heard in the High Court of New Zealand in New Plymouth. The defendant, Mr Hamiora Laupama, had pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to a murder. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for Mr Laupama, considering various legal principles and case law precedents.

The court evaluated the purposes of sentencing, including holding the offender accountable, providing for the interests of the victim's family, denouncing the conduct, and assisting in the offender's rehabilitation. The court also considered the principles of sentencing, such as the gravity of the offending and the offender's degree of culpability. The court reviewed relevant case law, which indicated that sentences for being an accessory after the fact to murder typically range from community-based sentences to three years' imprisonment. The court noted that similar cases generally resulted in starting points of 12–18 months' imprisonment.

The court identified both aggravating and mitigating factors in the case. Aggravating factors included the significant harm caused by the offence, as evidenced by victim impact statements, and the offender's gang affiliation. Mitigating factors included the offender's guilty plea, remorse, and cooperation with police. After considering the arguments from both the Crown and the defence, the court determined an appropriate starting point of 18 months' imprisonment. This starting point was then discounted by 45% due to the mitigating factors, resulting in an effective sentence of 10 months' imprisonment. However, the court opted to convert this sentence to a period of five months' home detention, considering it the least restrictive option and the potential risks to the defendant's safety in prison.

In conclusion, Mr Laupama was sentenced to five months' home detention for his role as an accessory after the fact to murder, with the standard conditions of home detention and an electronic monitoring condition to apply.

Orders