Legal Research
Cases
R v Pilitati

R v Pilitati

Case [2019] NZHC 3164 3 December 2019

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Mens Rea & Intention

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Injunction

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-092-3146

[2019] NZHC 3164

THE QUEEN

v

SEMI PILITATI

Hearing: 3 December 2019

Appearances:

M S Williams and C M Hallaway for Crown P Le’au’anae and T M Saseve for Defendant

Judgment:

3 December 2019

SENTENCING REMARKS OF DUFFY J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Kayes Fletcher Walker Limited, Auckland Panama Le’au’anae, Barrister, Auckland Saseve Lawyers, Auckland

R v PILITATI [2019] NZHC 3164 [3 December 2019]

[1] Mr Pilitati, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to the murder of Arthur Brown.

Facts of the offending

[2] The bare facts of the offending are set out in the police summary of facts. More detailed information is given in your police interview and the statements given to police by the persons they interviewed. This information is not inconsistent with the police summary of facts and I propose to take it into account because it offers a clearer explanation for how the offending arose.

[3] The police summary of facts informs me that the victim Arthur Brown was 26 years old. In the early hours of 10 March 2019, Mr Brown was standing outside a bakery, which is in the shopping area on the corner of Vine and Farmer Street in Mangere, when he was attacked by you.

[4] Shortly before the attack you had been at your home with family and friends. Alcohol was consumed although you deny having consumed any.

[5] CCTV footage shows that at approximately 12.30am, which was roughly 10 minutes before the attack, Mr Brown had walked from the shopping area down Vine Street towards your home. A few minutes later he appears on the CCTV footage walking back towards the Vine Street shops. The CCTV footage then shows that at 12.40am you, your brother and an associate went along Vine Street towards the shopping area. You were armed with a shotgun; your brother was carrying a machete and the associate had an axe.

[6] You confronted Mr Brown outside the bakery. You shot him twice with your shotgun. He fell to the ground after the first shot. One shot hit his left collar bone, damaging the carotid artery and jugular vein. This caused the fatal injury. The other injury was to Mr Brown’s back, near his right shoulder. The police arrived at the scene shortly afterwards. They attempted to give first aid to Mr Brown, but he was pronounced dead at the scene. At the police interview you said the first shot you fired hit Mr Brown in the back and when he turned around you shot him again.

[7] You and your associates then ran away, got into a van and drove to another address, where you stored and cleaned the shotgun.

[8] You later told the police that when you arrived at the shopping area you saw Mr Brown talking on a cell-phone and heard him say words to the effect they are drinking in the garage. This led…

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 Pilitati

Details

AGLC: R v Pilitati [2019] NZHC 3164
Case: [2019] NZHC 3164
Decision Date: 3 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pilitati involves the sentencing of the defendant, Semi Pilitati, who pleaded guilty to the murder of Arthur Brown. The facts of the case indicate that Pilitati, along with his associates, confronted and shot Brown, resulting in his death. The court considered various factors, including Pilitati's background, his state of mind at the time of the offence, and the impact of his actions on Brown's family. The legal issues involved determining the appropriate sentence for Pilitati under the New Zealand Sentencing Act, particularly considering the Three Strikes Law, which mandates life imprisonment without parole for a second serious violent conviction. The court assessed the circumstances of the offence, Pilitati's culpability, and the principles of sentencing to decide whether a sentence of life imprisonment without parole would be manifestly unjust. After thorough analysis and comparison with similar cases, the court determined that such a sentence would be grossly disproportionate and manifestly unjust. Consequently, Pilitati was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 10 years.

Orders