Legal Research
Cases
R v Simpson

R v Simpson

Case [2024] NZHC 623 21 March 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF CO-DEFENDANT M PURSUANT TO S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-092-005399

[2024] NZHC 623

THE KING

v

TAMATI KAS SIMPSON

Hearing: 21 March 2024

Appearances:

D Stevens, G Witana for the Crown

M Dyhrberg KC, D-M Cross, J Jackson for T K Simpson

Judgment:

21 March 2024

[REDACTED] SENTENCING NOTES OF WHATA J

R v SIMPSON [2024] NZHC 623 [21 March 2024]

[1]Mr Simpson you have been found guilty of:

(a)One charge of unlawful possession of a firearm.1

(b)One charge of murder. 2

[2] The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment. The central issue to determine to today is whether you must serve a sentence of life imprisonment or a fixed term of imprisonment and in either case, the minimum period of imprisonment you must serve.

Mr Siaosi

[3] Before I go further, I wish to first acknowledge, Mr Siaosi, as well as his aiga and friends. He was only 23 when he died. As the victims statements show, Mr Siaosi was a much loved partner, father, brother and son. As [redacted] and [redacted] so beautifully said, Mr Siaosi was a most big hearted person, loyal and honest. He had a great passion for sport and was loved for his loyalty and honesty. He was a humble man who always looked out for those when he could.

[4] I also acknowledge the deep grief and anger felt by Mr Siaosi’s family. A partner, son and brother traumatised not only by their loss, but by their proximity to the killing. Nothing I say today will provide a remedy for your trauma or for the loss suffered by you all, but hopefully you can feel sure that I have taken it into account your trauma when reaching my sentence.

Facts of offending

[5]I turn now to the facts of your offending Mr Simpson.

1 Arms Act 1983, s 51: maximum penalty 3 years imprisonment/$4,000 fine.
2 Crimes Act 1961 ss 167, 168 and 172: maximum penalty life imprisonment.

[6] On the afternoon of 17 May 2019, at about 3pm, you were driving a blue Holden Commodore with your friend M along [redacted]. A school was located nearby.

[7] While driving along [redacted], you saw [redacted] and Joseph Siaosi standing outside Mr Siaosi’s family home. Mr Siaosi stared at you both, trying to "staunch [you] out".

[8] You stopped at the dairy at the end of the road. M entered the dairy and purchased some items. He got back in the car, and you drove back down [redacted]. You stopped the vehicle outside [redacted]. As you stopped [redacted] and Mr Siaosi approached the car and spoke to you and M, telling you to leave. Mr [redacted] saw the butt of a gun held by you.

[9] You and Mr Siaosi got into a verbal argument and Mr Siaosi challenged you both to a…

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 Simpson

Details

AGLC: R v Simpson [2024] NZHC 623
Case: [2024] NZHC 623
Decision Date: 21 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Whata J presided over the case of the Crown versus Tamati Kas Simpson. Simpson was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm and murder. The central issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for Simpson, specifically whether he should receive a life sentence or a fixed term of imprisonment, along with the minimum period of imprisonment he would need to serve. The court had to consider the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case, including Simpson's background, his remorse, and the impact on the victim's family.

The court assessed Simpson's culpability and the seriousness of his actions, taking into account the impulsive nature of the offence and the significant harm caused. It considered the aggravating factors, such as the use of a firearm in a public place with potential danger to the public, and the mitigating factors, including Simpson's youth, his background, and his potential for rehabilitation. The court also weighed the impact of a lengthy sentence on Simpson's children. Based on this assessment, the court determined a fixed term sentence of 17 years imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 8 years and 6 months.

In determining whether a life sentence would be appropriate, the court compared Simpson's case to similar cases and found that while some factors suggested a life sentence might be unjust, the use of a firearm in a public place with potential danger to the public, including children, and the need to strongly denounce Simpson's actions, led the court to conclude that a life sentence was necessary. The court sentenced Simpson to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years for the murder charge, and 12 months imprisonment, to be served concurrently, for the charge of possession of a firearm.

The court's decision balanced the need for deterrence, denunciation, and protection of the public, with the potential for Simpson's rehabilitation and reconnection to his family. The sentence aimed to hold Simpson accountable for his actions, promote a sense of responsibility, and provide an opportunity for him to make positive contributions to society in the future.

Orders