R v Samuels - [2019] NZHC 2948

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF WITNESSES PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF OTHER DEFENDANT UNTIL THE FINAL DISPOSITION OF HIS TRIAL.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2018-096-2743

[2019] NZHC 2948

THE QUEEN

v

FALCON SAMUELS

Hearing: 12 November 2019

Appearances:

G J Burston for Crown

N H Wright for Defendant

Sentence date:

12 November 2019

SENTENCING OF COOKE J

[1] Mr Samuels you appear today to be sentenced for the murder of Paul Te Hiko following your conviction at trial.1 You also appear for sentence on the following charges in relation to which you earlier pleaded guilty:

(a)assault with intent to rob;2

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 167, maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2 Section 236(1), maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

R v SAMUELS [2019] NZHC 2948 [12 November 2019]

(b)demanding with menaces,3 and

(c)two charges of theft.4

Factual basis for sentencing

The murder of Paul Te Hiko

[2] I deal first with the factual basis for sentencing, and begin with the murder of Paul Te Hiko. As the Court of Appeal said in R v Connelly, I must form my own view of the facts, and I am not bound to accept the version of the facts most favourable to you.5

[3] On the evening of 7 March 2018 you went to an address in Wainuiomata which was the pad of the Manga Kahu gang. You met three associates, Mr A, Mr B and Mr C.6 A plan was then implemented to go to another address in Wainuiomata on Jack Vaughn Grove, nicknamed “the Dojo”. The Dojo was occupied by Paul Te Hiko, the victim. Mr Te Hiko was a patched member of Black Power but he had been engaging in business with other gangs and the planned offending was connected with gang disputes. The plan involved going to the Dojo to steal Mr Te Hiko’s drugs or other property. It encompassed doing serious violence to him if he was present, potentially involving killing him, particularly if he resisted. Weapons were taken for that purpose.

[4] Mr C drove the group from the gang pad and dropped you near to Jack Vaughn Grove after 10 pm that night. The Dojo was part of a subdivision site. The main building, nicknamed “the Dojo” was an old boxing and karate training hall. The southern half was used for recreation and as a storage area, with weights, a pool table, kitchen, couch and a TV. Directly adjacent was a container used as a sleepout by Mr Te Hiko. Mr Te Hiko was living there.

[5] You and your associates were armed with a shotgun and a crowbar. You approached the Dojo. The lights were on as Mr Te Hiko was home. Mr Te Hiko

3 Section 239(2), maximum penalty 7 years’ imprisonment.
4 Sections 219 and 223(d), maximum penalty three months’…

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 Samuels

Details

AGLC: R v Samuels [2019] NZHC 2948
Case: [2019] NZHC 2948
Decision Date: 12 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry, the case of R v Samuels (2019) dealt with the sentencing of Falcon Samuels for the murder of Paul Te Hiko, assault with intent to rob, demanding with menaces, and theft. The legal issues included whether a 17-year minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) was manifestly unjust under section 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002 for the murder charge, and determining appropriate sentences for the other charges. The court considered the premeditation and gang-related nature of the murder, the offender's personal circumstances, and the principles of the Sentencing Act. The court determined that a 17-year MPI was not manifestly unjust despite the offender's difficult background, and sentenced Samuels to life imprisonment for the murder, with a 17-year MPI, and concurrent sentences for the other charges.

Orders