R v Paul - [2025] NZHC 246

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…

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 246
Case: [2025] NZHC 246
Decision Date: 21 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Haupapa Snowy Paul, was on trial for unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle and discharging a firearm with reckless disregard for the safety of others. The charges related to an incident that occurred during a period of ongoing hostilities between the Killer Beez and Tribesmen motorcycle gangs. Paul is a member of the Killer Beez gang. The incident occurred at the address of [Ms H], who was in bed when a vehicle arrived. She saw a person in black standing behind the gate to her driveway. Several shots were fired at her house, one of which passed through the bedroom window close to where she was standing. The police found four spent shotgun shells in the driveway of the address, together with wadding from shotgun cartridges. The Crown alleged that Paul was one of the persons who was involved in the shooting at [Ms H’s] address. The Crown case against Paul was entirely circumstantial, and it was up to the court to determine whether the combined effect of all the evidence established Paul’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court found Paul guilty on both charges.

Orders