R v Paul
[2025] NZHC 246
•21 February 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CRI-2023-092-004586
[2025] NZHC 246
THE KING v
HAUPAPA SNOWY PAUL
Hearing: 17-19 February 2025 Counsel:
A Al-Janabi and C Fountain for Crown
D B Stevens and R J D Jones for Defendant
Verdicts:
21 February 2025
VERDICTS OF LANG J
Solicitors/counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Manukau D B Stevens, Auckland
R v PAUL [2025] NZHC 246 [21 February 2025]
[1] Mr Paul has entered not guilty pleas and elected trial by a Judge sitting without a jury on charges of unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle1 and discharging a firearm with reckless disregard for the safety of others.2
[2]For the reasons that follow, I find Mr Paul guilty on both charges.
Background
[3] The charges relate to an incident that occurred during a period of ongoing hostilities between the Killer Beez and Tribesmen motorcycle gangs. Mr Paul is a patched member of the Killer Beez gang. He is commonly referred to by the nickname “Mask” or “G-Mask”.
[4] 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.
[5] The charges against Mr Paul were laid after a shooting incident that occurred late on the evening of 24 May 2022. Shortly before 11.30 pm on that date, a motor vehicle drove up the driveway of a property situated at 26B Rathgar Road, Henderson. Mr Michael Erickson, also known as “Sweet”, had earlier been living at the address with his then partner, [Ms H], and her young children. Mr Erickson was a patched member of the Tribesmen gang.
[6] [Ms H] was in bed when the vehicle arrived. She went to the bedroom window after she heard a vehicle revving its engine loudly in the driveway of her address. She moved the blind to look outside and saw the figure of a person clothed in black standing behind the gate to her driveway. Several shots were then fired at her house, one of which passed through the bedroom window close to where she was standing. It was sufficiently close for her to feel the wind of shotgun pellets as they travelled
1 Crimes Act 1961, s 226(2).
2 Section 198(2).
through the window past her head and then embedded in the wall of the bedroom. The vehicle then drove away.
[7] [Mr E] was visiting one of [Ms H’s] neighbours on the evening of 24 May 2022 and saw a Subaru motor vehicle parked in the driveway as he was about to leave. He had to wait for that vehicle to drive out of the driveway before he could back his own car down to the street. He was able to see that the Subaru had reversed up the driveway but could not see or describe any of the occupants.
[8] When the police arrived a short time later, they found four spent shotgun shells in the driveway of the address, together with wadding from shotgun cartridges. In addition to the damage to the bedroom window, they found damage to a wooden boundary fence and the wire fence at the end of the driveway. They also found damage to the bedroom window framing and brickwork below another window. A closed circuit television camera mounted on the wall of the address had also been destroyed.
[9] The police subsequently stopped the Subaru motor vehicle at approximately 2.30 am on 25 May 2022. Mr Desmond Hiko was the only person in the vehicle at that time. The police then arranged for the vehicle to be forensically examined.
[10] Mr Paul was arrested after the police pursued a Toyota vehicle associated with him late in the evening of 26 May 2022 after it failed to stop when requested to do so. Police officers in a helicopter involved in the pursuit had seen the vehicle stop at an address in New Windsor, where a passenger in the front seat was seen to carry a guitar bag into the house. The group then left the address in another vehicle. When police officers stopped that vehicle a short time later, they found that Mr Paul, [Mr S] and [Mr T] were the occupants. When they searched the house at which the first vehicle had stopped, they found the guitar bag in a crawl space in the lounge. This was found to contain two rifles and several rounds of ammunition. Several rounds of ammunition were also found in the vehicle that the men had left parked at the address.
[11] Mr Paul was initially remanded in custody on charges of being in possession of the firearms and ammunition found at the New Windsor address. However, those charges were subsequently dismissed after Mr Toby took sole responsibility for those items.
Issues
[12] The Crown alleges that Mr Paul was one of the persons who was involved in the shooting at [Ms H’s] address in Rathgar Road. Two other persons, Mr Joshua Baker and Mr Hiko, have each pleaded guilty to unlawfully getting into a stolen motor vehicle and discharging a firearm with reckless disregard for the safety of others. Those charges were laid in relation to the shooting at the Rathgar Road property.
[13] Given their convictions on those charges, there is no dispute that Mr Hiko and Mr Baker were involved in the Rathgar Road shooting. Nor is there any dispute that it occurred in the manner described by [Ms H]. There is ample evidence to support her version of events from the forensic examination carried out by the police at the scene. The sole issue in relation to the firearms charge is whether Mr Paul accompanied Mr Baker and Mr Hiko when they travelled to Rathgar Road and discharged shots in the direction of [Ms H’s] house. If he did, it is common ground that he would be guilty of the firearms charge on the basis that he either discharged a firearm himself3 or aided or encouraged others in the vehicle to do so.4
[14] So far as the charge of unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle is concerned, there is no dispute that the Subaru motor vehicle in which Mr Hiko and Mr Baker travelled to the Rathgar Road address was stolen. CCTV cameras situated in the carpark of the Westfield Manukau shopping mall depicted the vehicle being driven out of the carpark at approximately 11.48 am on the same day as the shooting. The agreed facts record that Mr Baker and Mr Hiko subsequently drove that vehicle to Rathgar Road at approximately 11.18 pm.
3 Crimes Act 1961, s 66(1)(a).
4 Section 66(1)(b) and (c).
[15] The issues I must determine in relation to this charge are whether Mr Paul was one of the persons in the vehicle when it arrived at [Ms H’s] address and, if so, whether he knew the vehicle was stolen.
The trial
[16] None of the essential facts on which the Crown relies is in dispute. Much of the factual material is contained in an agreed statement of facts tendered under s 9 of the Evidence Act 2006. In addition, the Crown called the officer in charge of the case, Detective Joshua Peters, to give oral evidence at the trial. He played CCTV film footage and a series of telephone conversations undertaken by Mr Paul whilst in prison on remand. The Crown also relied on the evidence of five other witnesses whose briefs of evidence were taken as read.
Approach
[17] Mr Paul faces criminal charges. The directions approved by the Court of Appeal in R v Wanhalla are therefore appropriate.5 The onus is on the Crown from beginning to end to prove each element of each charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is not sufficient for me to conclude that Mr Paul is either probably guilty or even very likely guilty. Rather, the Crown must make me sure of each of the elements. In this context a reasonable doubt is an honest and reasonable uncertainty left in my mind after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence. On the other hand, the Crown is not required to prove the charges to the point of mathematical certainty.
[18] The Crown case against Mr Paul is entirely circumstantial. This means that I am required to apply the principles relating to circumstantial evidence.6 Where the Crown relies on a combination of circumstances to prove Mr Paul’s guilt some of these will carry less weight than others. However, the combined effect of all the evidence must bring me to the point where I am sure of Mr Paul’s guilt.
[19] In reaching my verdicts it will be necessary for me to draw inferences. In doing so I remind myself that inferences can only be drawn from facts that have a firm
5 R v Wanhalla [2007] 2 NZLR 573 (CA) at [49].
6 R v Guo [2009] NZCA 612 at [49]–[50].
evidential basis. Inferences to be drawn from those facts must be logical and reasonable. As juries are commonly reminded, there is no room for guesswork or speculation in this reasoning process.
Analysis
Factors relied upon by the defence
[20] Before analysing the evidence relied upon by the Crown, I propose to record several factors relied upon by the defence to support its argument that the Crown cannot prove Mr Paul was present when the shooting at Rathgar Road occurred.
[21] First, as will already be evident, [Ms H] is unable to say how many people were in the vehicle that she saw in her driveway. Nor is she able to provide any meaningful description of the only person she did see. However, the fact that Mr Baker and Mr Hiko have pleaded guilty to charges relating to the Rathgar Road shooting means there were at least two persons involved. The fact that two shotguns were used confirms that this is the case.
[22] Secondly, there is no forensic evidence to link Mr Paul with either the stolen Subaru motor vehicle or the items found following the shooting at Rathgar Road. By contrast, Mr Hiko’s fingerprints were found on a drink container in the vehicle. Fingerprints and DNA attributed to [Mr S] were also found on the Subaru’s rear vision mirror and another drink container in the vehicle.
[23] Thirdly, no link has been established between the firearms found at the New Windsor address at the time Mr Paul was arrested and those used in the shootings at either Rathgar Road or in Flat Bush. The relevance of this will become clear shortly. As I have already noted, Mr Toby took sole responsibility for those items in any event.
[24] Fourthly, the Crown derives no assistance from the CCTV footage relating to the Subaru motor vehicle that was used in the Rathgar Road shootings. The police were able to obtain CCTV footage of the Subaru at the time it was stolen from the Westgate mall as well as shortly before and after the shootings at Rathgar Road. It is not possible to tell from the CCTV footage who stole the vehicle or how many persons
were in the vehicle when it was filmed travelling towards Rathgar Road at approximately 11.18 pm that evening.
[25] The Subaru vehicle was then captured on CCTV at a service station in Massey at approximately 11.33 pm, very shortly after the Rathgar Road incident. Mr Baker was in the passenger seat of the vehicle and Mr Hiko and [Ms S] are seen to get out of the vehicle and approach the service station counter. Mr Paul is not captured on CCTV at this point.
[26] It follows that the Crown cannot establish any direct connection between Mr Paul and the firearms and vehicle used in the Rathgar Road shootings. Mr Stevens also reminds me on Mr Paul’s behalf that [Mr S] has never been charged with any involvement in the Rathgar Road shootings even though he was clearly in the vehicle a very short time after it occurred.
[27] Finally, Mr Stevens reminds me that the shootings at Flat Bush and Rathgar Road were not isolated incidents. The evidence disclosed that the conflict between the Killer Beez and the Tribesmen resulted in seven separate shootings that occurred between 6.12 pm and 11.18 pm on 24 May 2024 alone. This obviously raises the possibility that Messrs Hiko and Baker may have parted company from Mr Paul and joined with others, including [Mr S], to carry out the Rathgar Road shooting.
Factors relied upon by the Crown
[28] I now consider the factors relied upon by the Crown as demonstrating Mr Paul’s guilt.
Prior involvement with Mr Erickson
[29] Mr Paul clearly knew who Mr Erickson, or “Sweet”, was. He referred to him, often in derogatory terms, on several occasions in telephone conversations with Killer Beez associates whilst in prison on remand.
[30] [Ms H] described Mr Erickson and Mr Paul as having an “on-off” relationship. She also described an incident that occurred in 2021 when Mr Paul visited her address
whilst Mr Erickson was living there. He was accompanied by one of Mr Erickson’s associates. [Ms H] says that Mr Erickson immediately told Mr Paul to leave because he was not welcome. Mr Paul complied with this request.
Involvement in the Flat Bush shooting
[31] Earlier in the evening of 24 May 2022 another shooting occurred at an address in Flat Bush. Mr Paul has pleaded guilty to charges of unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle and discharging a firearm with reckless disregard to the safety of others. These charges relate to that incident. The Crown relies on the events giving rise to these charges as providing support for the charges relating to the Rathgar Road incident.
[32] At approximately 6.50 pm on 24 May 2022, Mr Paul and three others drove to an address in Flat Bush in a stolen Mitsubishi Colt motor vehicle. Earlier the same day the owner of the vehicle discovered it had been stolen from where it was parked outside business premises in East Tamaki over the weekend of 21 to 23 May 2022.
[33] Mr Baker, Mr Hiko and Mr Toby travelled to Flat Bush with Mr Paul in the stolen vehicle. The vehicle stopped outside a residential address that was known to be occupied by Mr Champ Marsters, a patched member of the Tribesmen gang. Those in the vehicle then discharged at least eight shots towards Mr Marsters’ address. These damaged a vehicle parked in the driveway of the address, as well as brickwork on the side of the garage adjacent to the vehicle. The shots were fired from three firearms, two of which were shotguns.
[34] Mr Paul and his associates left the address after the occupants returned fire. This caused damage to neighbouring properties and vehicles. The Mitsubishi Colt was found abandoned approximately 750 metres away. The occupants of the vehicle had been driven away in a vehicle that had arrived approximately five minutes earlier. The engine of the Mitsubishi Colt was still running when the police located it. They found spent shotgun cells on the front and rear passenger seats.
[35] The fact that Mr Paul acknowledges his involvement in a similar shooting that occurred less than five hours before the Rathgar Road shooting is obviously an important plank of the Crown’s case. Although the Crown relies on the Flat Bush
shooting as propensity evidence, its probative value extends further than merely showing that Mr Paul has a tendency to use firearms against addresses occupied by persons associated with the Tribesmen gang. Rather, it demonstrates that, just a few hours before the Rathgar Road shooting, Mr Paul acknowledges he was involved in another very similar shooting directed at an address connected with persons associated with the Tribesmen gang.
[36] Importantly, too, Messrs Hiko and Baker have acknowledged their involvement in the both the Rathgar Road shooting and the earlier Flat Bush shooting. This means they accept that after leaving Flat Bush they obtained another stolen vehicle and travelled to Rathgar Road, where they discharged firearms at [Ms H’s] address. Further, an examination of spent shotgun shells from both incidents revealed that one of the shotguns used in the Flat Bush shooting was also used in the Rathgar Road shooting. The modus operandi of the two shootings was also similar. In both cases the offenders used stolen motor vehicles to travel to the address where the shootings took place
[37] Mr Paul’s acknowledged involvement in the Flat Bush shooting means the issue in relation to the firearms charge narrows to whether I am sure Mr Paul was still with Mr Hiko and Mr Baker when they travelled to [Ms H’s] address in Rathgar Road. Another way of putting that question is whether it is reasonably possible that Mr Paul parted company from Mr Baker and Mr Hiko before they travelled to that address.
[38] I consider an important factor in resolving this issue is the level of commitment Mr Paul has shown to the Killer Beez gang in the context of their conflict with the Tribesmen. This is demonstrated in conversations he conducted with associates whilst on remand in prison.
The level of commitment shown by Mr Paul to the Killer Beez in their conflict with the Tribesmen
[39] Mr Paul continued to maintain contact with persons associated with the Killer Beez gang whilst he was in custody on remand. Some of these were in prison with him. He contacted others using the prison telephone. On these occasions he
commonly used a PIN, or access code, belonging to another prisoner. This was no doubt to disguise the fact that he was making the calls.
[40] Mr Paul made the calls relevant to the present proceeding by initially calling an approved contact. She was then able to connect him to cell phones used by his associates. The ensuing discussions covered many topics. Those of relevance for present purposes relate to Mr Paul’s involvement with the Killer Beez in the conflict with the Tribesmen gang.
[41] Throughout the telephone calls Mr Paul displays an extremely staunch support for the Killer Beez. He described with considerable enthusiasm several incidents where he had been involved in armed conflict with the Tribesmen. One example of this is to be found in a conversation between Mr Paul and an associate named “Shooter” on 7 June 2022. This included the following exchange about steps taken by Mr Paul to stop the Tribesmen using premises for the sale of drugs (“bullet shops”):
HP (Mr Paul): Is uh, are there a bullet shop down there?
S (Shooter): Um, fuck, first I’ve heard, my gee. There was no bullet shop out there when I was out.
HP:Oh, yeah? Fuck, cos we went out, we shot a few of their bullet shops down there. We went there and those fuckin’ cunts shot back at us, ow, homos.
S:Oh, did they, did they, did, did they deliver some gun smoke back?
HP:Yeah. Fuckin’ I sent Rozek to the door and I was fuckin’ hiding behind the house, ow, and I told him, bro go get us a foiler and fuckin’ ay, ow, and the bro went up at the front, I pushed him out the way, ah, hurry up, fuck, where’s the shit. Fuck.
S: (Laughs)
HP: (Laughs)
S: And did they, did they just pull one of the bat?
HP:Nah, they were like, ay, oh eh. And I go, ay, bro, fuck, we’re shutting this shit down, bro, fuck the Tribesmen. And then they were like, oh, yep, boom. And that fella grabbed, reached for his pumpy [shotgun] and I fuckin’ blew the front door in.
S: Nice. And did they, did they manage to grab it?
HP:Uh, yep, they grabbed it. Then fuck, we’re just having like aye ah, fuckin’ laser tag, ow. We were like play laser tag, ow, fuck.
S: (Laughs)
HP: But yeah.
S: Oh, fuck AO G-Mask fuck, I’m itching, I’m itching, brother.
HP:Fuck, we shut all… Bro went to their bullet shops down PB, shut shit down, ow. They were like, fuck you little cunt. I pulled up, no belly on eah, fuck what’s up cunts Killer Beez.
S: Oh, did, did they open the door?
HP:Yeah. Fuck, I went to all their bullet shops. Went to Huzzle’s nan, shut shit down over there too and they were like, fuck.
[42] In a similar vein, the following discussion occurred when Shooter asked what had happened at Champ Marsters’ address in Flat Bush on 24 May 2022:
S:Yeah. How, how did that movie play out when yous went to Champ’s?
HP:Nah, we um, fuckin’ picked up a hottie [stolen vehicle], dropped off my legit [legitimate vehicle]. We just left it in Otara somewhere. Fuckin’ um, loaded up the shit, fuckin’ went to that spot, done a U-ey down the side street and fuck the bro let it off straight off the bat eah. Fuck solid! We were just hanging out the window, boom, boom. Fuck, it was wicked my brother. Fuck …
S: (Laughs)
HP:…the bro just carried on loading, unloading, unloading, load it again.
S: (Laughs)
HP: I was like fuck, solid, brother.
[43] In a discussion on 29 May 2022 with an associate named “Strap”, Mr Paul expressed support for another associate who had demonstrated bravery in the conflict after others in the gang had questioned his commitment:
HP:Yeah, he’s got voted off the island when he first got out, but I went to the hui and I told them, bro yous wait, when it’s time, watch our brother shine and they didn’t believe it brother. As
soon as it popped off bro, we were the first ones out there. Brother, straight up and now everyone’s like, fuck he’s the man, ow bro, yous weren’t saying that before G. Fuck.
…
HP:Yeah fuck he’s well deserved that brother of ours, ow my brother, I told my boys fuck he deserves that respect G. Fucken hell, if there was only two of us on the battlefield and fuck, early, aye ow brother. Late nights, early mornings, G we’re there.
[44] Mr Paul obviously holds a senior position within the Killer Beez because other often address him as “my king”. Further, on several occasions whilst he was in custody he gave orders in the expectation that others would carry them out. This is shown in the following excerpt of a conversation between Mr Paul and [Mr H] on 22 June 2022:
HP: Have you seen Harsh around?
D (Dakota): Um, nah I haven’t seen Harshy. Um, nah fuck I haven’t. HP: Has he messaged you or anything?
D: Nuh.
HP:Bro if you hear from him, tell him fucking drop my pumpy [pump action shotgun] off ah. Fucking fat shit ah, fuck he took off with my fana [firearm] and I haven’t even heard from him.
D: Oh aye?
HP: Fucking fat cunt.
D: Oh yeah, I’ll go there.
HP:Yeah ah. Fucking tell him go drop it off to Sneak ah. Fuck he’s… bro, he’s been trying to avoid ah, the boys.
[45] On more than one occasion Mr Paul also expressed frustration with members of his group whom he believed were failing to fully participate or “partake”, in his words, in the conflict with the Tribesmen. In a conversation with Shooter on 7 June 2022, Mr Paul complained that some of his fellow gang members “were sitting on the La-Z-Boy while we’re out in the fuckin’ trenches”. He said that he and others “all got kids and family” but were “still able to come up”.
[46] In a conversation with Shooter the previous day Mr Paul had also described an incident in which he had seized a motorcycle belonging to another Killer Beez associate who had not been pulling his weight in the conflict. When Shooter said this person had “not been clocking in”, Mr Paul responded:
HP:Ultra. That’s what I said, “Where you been motherfucker? Bro we’re in a war where you been?” then he was like had nothing to say. I jumped on his bike, “Bro pass those keys outta that pocket Chief and the helmet” and he was like, “Fuck” gave it over. I told the boys, ow I’m out rrr rode off ow.
S: (Laughs)
HP: (Laughs)
S: (Laughs) He he he he, yeah AO did ya change the ownership?
HP:Ah yeah fuck I changed everything. He didn’t even try report it, I told him, “Fuck I’ll be back with some guns, smoke you G if it gets reported”.
[47] I accept Mr Stevens’ submission that none of these conversations is directly relevant to the incident that occurred at Rathgar Road. I also accept there may have been an element of bravado in Mr Paul’s discussions with his Killer Beez associates. The telephone conversations nevertheless demonstrate Mr Paul’s determination to assist the Killer Beez in the conflict with the Tribesmen. I consider Mr Paul’s attitude towards the conflict with the Tribesmen makes it inherently less likely that, having participated with obvious relish in the Flat Bush shooting, he would then elect not to accompany Mr Hiko and Mr Baker to Rathgar Road.
The conversations about the Rathgar Road shooting
[48] The Crown also relies on three conversations in which Mr Paul referred to what had happened at Rathgar Road. These occurred when Mr Paul was discussing information he had received from others as to what [Ms H] had told them she saw during that incident.
[49] The first of these occurred on 6 June 2022 during a conversation between Mr Paul and Shooter:
HP:… Sweet was tryna be like “Bro fuck I ain’t got a problem with you’s but fuckin tell that cunt Mask fuckin ran up on my spot”. I went, “Shut your fuckin arse”.
S: (Laughs)
HP: … (laughs)
S: (Laughs)
HP:(Laughs) Oh, straight up brother I fuckin bro he was messaging me, “Fuck you nearly killed my fuckin son and my baby where the fuck” …
S: Yeah, yeah.
HP: … I said, “Oh fuck, I don’t give a fuck nigga”. Fuck … S: Yeah yeah.
HP: … cos they’re real gang shit eh, I didn’t care. S: (Laughs)
HP: Like kids and all will get it ow, fuck.
S: (Laughs)
HP: (Laughs)
S: Yeah taking shit out on the kids eh? Yeah. HP: Yes ow brother yes.
S: (Laughs) Fuckin bad man oh my killer.
HP: Fuck, fuck …
[50] The first part of this conversation is difficult to follow but it appears to have stemmed from a discussion Mr Paul had had with another person about what Mr Erickson had said to that person. I accept Mr Stevens’ submission that it does not contain any express or implied admission by Mr Paul that he was present at Rathgar Road when the shooting occurred. Rather, the relevance of the discussion for present purposes is that it shows Mr Paul appears to have had no qualms about becoming involved in incidents that placed children at risk as the incident at Rathgar Road clearly did.
[51] The second conversation occurred between Mr Paul and an unknown person on 7 June 2022 when the following exchange occurred:
HP:I was talking to this other bitch uh, when it was, yesterday, Kylie, ow. And um, yeah, I was just fishing off her and fuck, straight up, ow, I don’t know if its just being paranoid but, ay fuck. Yeah. It’s just the shit that was his moa [partner] was saying. I know it’s not adding up…
UNKNOWN PERSON: What, what was she saying?
HP:Nah, cos she goes um, they seen Sweet’s moa and um. I know how everything played out eah and they were like, this car came in our driveway. I seen Mask jump out, open up the gate. She looked out the window, seen my face, seen the thing come out, you know, all of that shit happened. Then um, she was getting the description of the clothes and all that, and the car, and bro, totally off the mark, ow. So I was like bro, fuck, I know that bitch be talking shit. Talking a whole lot of shit. Yeah but fuck, bro, I thought that fella would’ve made contact with yous, ay? Oh, you know, with the boys at least.
(Emphasis added.)
[52] This discussion has greater relevance for present purposes because Mr Paul states that he “knows how everything played out”. He then tells the unknown person that [Ms H] has identified him (Mask) as being one of the persons at her address on the night of the shooting. However, he points out that she has gone on to give a description of the clothing he was wearing and the vehicle that was “totally off the mark”.
[53] Mr Stevens submits it is likely that other Killer Beez associates had told Mr Paul what happened at Rathgar Road because he kept in contact with them whilst in custody. He had also shared a cell with Mr Hiko between 1 and 4 June 2022, which was just days before these telephone conversations occurred. Mr Stevens says it is therefore not surprising that Mr Paul had learned what had happened at [Ms H’s] address.
[54] I accept these submissions as far as they go, but I do not consider they provide an adequate explanation for the words Mr Paul uses. The words “I know how everything played out” suggest Mr Paul has knowledge acquired from being present when the events occurred rather than knowledge acquired through conversations with others who had been there. It is also significant that Mr Paul challenges the descriptions apparently given by [Ms H] of the vehicle and clothing worn by the person who came to her address on the basis that they are “totally off the mark”.
Notably, he does not take the opportunity to say she was clearly wrong because he was never at the Rathgar Road address. I therefore consider this conversation provides strong support for the Crown case.
[55] The third conversation also occurred on 7 June 2022, on this occasion between Mr Paul and a person called “Flinty”. This included the following discussion:
F:(Flinty):What do you reckon, Asem and them would give us up my king?
HP:Fuck I don’t know brother. Just, just tell me what you think. I’ll tell you that um, after it happened, I rung him and I go, “Bro his missus” and I go “Bro you fucken bitch. My fucking house just got shot up, bro fuck. She was like panicking eah. Like what the fuck are you panicking for idiot? and I’d like um, Sweet’s, Sweet and his missus got at her and goes …bro I fucken Mask fucken come running down my driveway, opened up the gate. My missus looked out, seen his face and he fucken pulled the fana out and fucken shot up the house… and I was like aye, thinking fuck it didn’t even go down like that… and I got the description of what they thought I was, you know, what I was wearing and fuck they were totally off ah.
[56] This passage is difficult to follow but the first part of the discussion appears to refer to the incident in which shots were fired at Mr Paul’s address on the evening of 25 May 2022. The conversation then moves to Mr Paul’s understanding as to what [Ms H] has told others about the shooting at Rathgar Road.
[57] Like the previous conversation, the third conversation is notable for the fact that Mr Paul does not take issue with [Ms H’s] identification of him as being present at Rathgar Road when the shootings occurred. Rather he challenges the version of events she has given and her description of the clothing he was wearing. He says this was “totally off”. I consider the closing words of the passage set out above strongly suggest that Mr Paul knew how matters had “gone down” because he was present when the events [Ms H] describes occurred.
Conclusion
[58] It is now necessary to determine whether, taking into account the issues raised by the defence, the factors relied upon by the Crown are sufficient to establish
Mr Paul’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I have concluded that two factors tip the balance in favour of the Crown. First, given Mr Paul’s acknowledged involvement in the Flat Bush incident and his unwavering support for the Killer Beez cause, I consider it is inherently unlikely that he would have parted company with Mr Baker and Mr Hiko before they travelled to [Ms H’s] address. Secondly, I consider that comments made by Mr Paul in the second and third telephone conversations amount to tacit acceptance by him that he was present when shots were fired at that address. I therefore find Mr Paul guilty on the firearms charge.
[59] This finding also establishes the first element of the second charge. The only remaining issue in relation to the second charge is whether Mr Paul knew, when he got into the Subaru, that it was stolen. This issue needs to be considered in light of the telephone conversation on 7 June 20227, in which Mr Paul describes how he parked his “legit” (legitimate) car and got into a “hottie” (stolen car) before travelling to Flat Bush. The same method was used for the Rathgar Road shooting. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that, when Mr Paul got into the Subaru motor vehicle on the evening of 24 May 2022, he knew that it had been stolen.
Verdicts
[60]I find Mr Paul guilty on both charges.
Lang J
7 Set out above at [41]–[42].