R v Matamata - [2020] NZHC 677

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF VICTIMS PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2018-020-003953

[2020] NZHC 677

THE QUEEN

v

JOSEPH AUGA MATAMATA

Hearing: 10 February – 17 March 2020

Counsel:

CR Walker and FE Cleary for Crown R Philip and W Hawkins for Defence

Ruling:

16 March 2020

Reasons:

2 April 2020

Reissued:

30 July 2020

REASONS FOR RULINGS AND DIRECTION OF CULL J (ON SLAVERY, TRAFFICKING AND PROPENSITY)

[1] Mr Matamata was tried over five and half weeks on 24 charges: 11 charges of trafficking in human beings by arranging the entry of complainants into New Zealand

R v MATAMATA [2020] NZHC 677 [2 April 2020]

by deception (the trafficking charges),1 and 13 charges of dealing in slaves (the slavery charges).2

[2] At the commencement of week three of the trial, I issued a minute in which I canvased the basis of the proposed question trail in respect of the two types of charges (the trafficking charges and the slavery charges) and proposed a legal direction for the slavery charges.3 Accompanying the minute, I attached relevant material on the definition of contemporary slavery, together with definitions gleaned from the most recent cases and The Bellagio-Harvard Guidelines on the Legal Parameters of Slavery.4 I invited Counsels’ submissions on that material and, over the ensuing two weeks, Counsel made submissions and suggested amendments to each of the draft question trails in respect of the charges and the proposed direction.

[3] On 11 March 2020, prior to the Crown and defence closings, I issued a further minute in which I provided Counsel with the finalised question trail and, to assist Counsel in their closings, the refined basis of the legal direction I proposed to give to the jury.5 Crown Counsel, Mr Walker, had asked if the question trail could be made available to the jury prior to closing addresses, to assist both Counsel and the jury. With the consent of both Counsel, I supplied the question trail to the jury with an explanation that this was my document and it was provided to them to assist in understanding Counsel’s addresses, but that I would be directing them on the legal ingredients of the charges, as the question trail showed.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 98D(1)(a). Seven of the trafficking charges were alleged to have occurred from July 2003 and before 7 November 2015 and were laid in accordance with s 98D before the enactment of s 5 of the Crimes Amendment Act 2015 on 7 November 2015. The four trafficking charges alleging trafficking after 7 November 2015 (charges 17, 19, 21 and 23) contain the amended wording (“knowing that the entry involved deceiving” the complainant), in accordance with amended s 98D(1)(a).
2 Section 98(1)(b), which was enacted on 1 January 1962 and subsequently amended on 3 April 2001. Although two of the slavery charges allegedly…

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 Matamata

Details

AGLC: R v Matamata [2020] NZHC 677
Case: [2020] NZHC 677
Decision Date: 2 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Napier Registry. The defendant, Joseph Auga Matamata, was charged with 24 offences in relation to 13 complainants, including 11 charges of trafficking in human beings by deception and 13 charges of dealing in slaves. The court had to decide the legal issues surrounding the definitions of slavery and trafficking in persons, as well as the admissibility of propensity evidence. The court found that the defendant's conduct towards the complainants showed a pattern of control, deprivation of individual liberty, and deriving benefit from their service or labour, which amounted to slavery. The court also found that the evidence had a high probative value and outweighed any prejudicial effect, and thus allowed the use of propensity evidence. The court gave a direction to the jury to consider each charge individually and to assess the evidence of each complainant separately, while also taking into account the similarities between the complainants' evidence.

The final orders of the court were not explicitly stated in the provided text, but it can be inferred that the defendant was found guilty on some or all of the charges based on the jury's verdict and the court's direction on the use of propensity evidence.

Orders