R v Moananui - [2021] NZHC 1442

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2019-054-003419

[2021] NZHC 1442

THE QUEEN

v

QUENTIN JOSEPH MOANANUI JEREMIAH SUA

MARIOTA SUA JASON DAVID SIGNAL

DEAN ARTHUR ALEXANDER JENNINGS

Hearing: 9 February – 7 May 2021

Counsel:

D R Davies and J J Harvey for the Crown

Q Moananui self-represented and P H Surridge as amicus curiae C J Tennet and M Jaquiery for Mr J Sua

L P F Lafferty and S Jefferson for Mr M Sua

C B Hirschfeld and T A Thompson for Mr Signal R M Lithgow QC and A Jeremich for Mr Jennings

Judgment:

17 June 2021

JUDGMENT OF CULL J

[Reasons for Oral Ruling no 21 on the s 147 applications]

[1] Four s 147 applications and submissions were filed by Quentin Moananui, Jeremiah Su’a, Jason Signal and Dean Jennings at the conclusion of the Crown case, on the basis that no properly directed jury could reasonably convict the defendants of some or all of the charges brought against them.1

1 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 147(3).

R v Sua [2021] NZHC 1442 [17 June 2021]

[2] The Crown opposed the s 147 applications on the grounds that there was sufficient evidence before the Court, which if accepted, could prove the Crown case and the charges brought against each of the four defendants.

[3] Following the hearing, I issued an Oral Ruling, deciding the applications.2 I declined the four s 147 applications, because I was satisfied that a properly directed jury could reasonably convict the defendants on the evidence adduced by the Crown. I now give my reasons.

[4] Each of the four defendants raised evidential matters in respect of their involvement and the charges brought against them. I deal first with each of the defendants’ submissions, followed by my conclusions.

Quentin Moananui

[5] Quentin Moananui filed a s 147 application solely in respect of the charge of murder brought against him.

[6] Mr Moananui submitted that there was no legally admissible evidence against him, upon which a properly directed jury could convict.

[7]He submitted that:

(a)there is no evidence of his meeting up at the Mobil Petrol Station or any other location with the other defendants prior to arriving at 107 Mulgrave Street;

(b)there is no evidence of how he got to the address of 107 Mulgrave Street;

(c)there is no evidence of any text messages or communications with Mr Moananui to meet the others at the relevant time on 12 September 2019;

2 R v Sua CRI-2019-054-3419, 16 April 2021.

(d)there were valid reasons for Mr Moananui to meet up with Kyle Rowe, because Mr Moananui’s wheel had come off his Falcon, which Mr Rowe had worked on;

(e)there is no evidence of Mr Moananui being seen with any weapon, either at 107 Mulgrave Street or anywhere else;

(f)there is no admission or statement, inculpatory or exculpatory, by Mr Moananui;

(g)the principal witness is Krystal Hewitt and she did not see…

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 Moananui

Details

AGLC: R v Moananui [2021] NZHC 1442
Case: [2021] NZHC 1442
Decision Date: 17 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved four defendants, Quentin Joseph Moananui, Jeremiah Sua Mariota Sua, Jason David Signal, and Dean Arthur Alexander Jennings, who were charged with various offences including murder. The Crown opposed the applications on the basis that there was sufficient evidence to prove the charges against each defendant. The court had to determine whether there was enough evidence for a properly directed jury to reasonably convict the defendants. The court considered the submissions made by each defendant and the Crown's response. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict each defendant if they accepted the Crown's case. The court declined the s 147 applications.

The four defendants filed applications under section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, seeking to dismiss some or all of the charges brought against them. The defendants argued that there was no legally admissible evidence against them, and that any evidence that did exist was speculative. The Crown opposed the applications, arguing that there was sufficient evidence to prove the charges against each defendant. The court had to determine whether there was enough evidence for a properly directed jury to reasonably convict the defendants. The court considered the submissions made by each defendant and the Crown's response. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict each defendant if they accepted the Crown's case. The court declined the s 147 applications.

Orders