R v Paul - [2025] NZHC 1192

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-092-004586

[2025] NZHC 1192

THE KING

v

HAUPAPA SNOWY PAUL

Hearing: 16 May 2025

Appearances:

K Karpik (for A Al-Janabi) for Crown D B Stevens for Defendant

Sentence:

16 May 2025

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Solicitors/counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Manukau D B Stevens, Auckland

R v PAUL [2025] NZHC 1192 [16 May 2025]

[1] Mr Paul, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to, or having been found guilty on, two charges of unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle1 and two charges of discharging a firearm with reckless disregard for the safety of others.2 You have also pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiring to commit murder.3

[2] The maximum sentence on each charge of recklessly discharging a firearm is seven years’ imprisonment whilst the maximum sentence on each of the charges of unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle is two years’ imprisonment. The maximum sentence on the charge of conspiring to murder is ten years’ imprisonment.

[3] Following a judge-alone trial in February 2025 I found you guilty on one charge of unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle and one charge of discharging a firearm with reckless disregard for the safety of others.4 You had earlier pleaded guilty to the remaining charges. I therefore base my sentencing remarks on the summary of facts for the charges to which you have entered guilty pleas and the evidence heard at trial for the remaining charges.

Background

[4] The charges were laid as a result of incidents that occurred during a period of ongoing hostilities between the Killer Beez and Tribesmen motorcycle gangs. You are a patched member of the Killer Beez gang.

[5] Between 21 May and 10 June 2022, a series of incidents occurred in which members and associates of each gang discharged firearms at residential addresses that were believed to be occupied by persons associated with the opposing gang. Several houses were also set on fire. In total, there were 27 shooting incidents and 11 instances of arson during this period.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 226(2).
2      Section 198(2).
3      Section 175.
4      R v Paul [2025] NZHC 246.

Involvement in Flat Bush shooting

[6] At approximately 6.50 pm on 24 May 2022, you and three others drove to an address in Flat Bush in a stolen Mitsubishi Colt motor vehicle. The vehicle stopped outside a residential address that was known to be occupied by a well-known patched member of the Tribesmen gang. You and your associates then discharged at least eight shots towards the address outside which you were parked. These damaged a vehicle parked in the driveway of the address, as well as brickwork on the side of a garage adjacent to the parked vehicle. Shots were fired from three firearms, two of which were shotguns.

[7] You and your associates left the address after the occupants returned fire, causing damage to neighbouring properties and vehicles. The…

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 Paul

Details

AGLC: R v Paul [2025] NZHC 1192
Case: [2025] NZHC 1192
Decision Date: 16 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the defendant, Haupapa Snowy Paul, faced sentencing for various charges related to gang-related violence and criminal conspiracy. Paul had pleaded guilty to charges of unlawfully entering motor vehicles, discharging a firearm with reckless disregard for safety, and conspiring to commit murder. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, taking into account the severity and context of the offences, as well as various aggravating and mitigating factors.

The legal issues before the court included establishing an appropriate starting point for the sentence, considering the totality principle, and weighing various aggravating and mitigating factors. The court considered the nature of the crimes, which occurred during a period of ongoing hostilities between motorcycle gangs, the level of premeditation, and the significant risk posed to the public. It also assessed Paul’s level of involvement and culpability within the gang structure, and the potential for rehabilitation and expressions of remorse.

Lang J began by establishing a starting point for the sentence, considering the seriousness of the offences, particularly the shooting at the Henderson property where the victim narrowly escaped injury. The court took into account the gang-related context, premeditation, and the potential for tragic consequences. Aggravating factors such as previous convictions for similar offences were considered, leading to an uplift in the sentence. Mitigating factors, including guilty pleas, cooperation during the trial, and personal background, were also weighed. The court allowed discounts for these factors, resulting in a reduction of the initial sentence. Ultimately, the court sentenced Paul to six years and two months' imprisonment for the most serious charge, with concurrent sentences for the other charges. The court opted not to impose a minimum term of imprisonment, leaving the decision to the parole authorities.

The final orders of the court reflected the comprehensive assessment of all factors, resulting in a sentence that aimed to balance the principles of deterrence, accountability, denunciation, and protection of the community, while also considering the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders