Legal Research
Cases
R v Taiapa

R v Taiapa

Case [2017] NZHC 3067 11 December 2017

Jurisdiction

Standing

Criminal Liability

Presumption of Innocence

Open Justice

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF

TRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE DEFENDANT UNTIL FINAL DETERMINATION OF ANY APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2017-070-004676

[2017] NZHC 3067

THE QUEEN

v

ANDRE ROBERT TAIAPA

Hearing: 8 December 2017

Counsel:

A J Pollett for Crown E A Hall for defendant

Judgment:

11 December 2017

JUDGMENT OF KATZ J

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 December 2017 at 3:30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: A Pollett, Hollister-Jones Lellman, Crown Solicitor, Tauranga Counsel: E A Hall, Pipitea Chambers, Wellington

R v TAIAPA [2017] NZHC 3067 [11 December 2017]

Introduction

[1] Andre Taiapa is charged with the murder of Don Henry Turei (Jnr) on 26 November 2016. He has previously been granted interim name suppression pursuant to s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (“Act”). He now seeks continued name suppression through until (at least) the case review hearing date of 21 February 2018.

[2] Mr Taiapa seeks name suppression on two grounds, namely that publication of his name would be likely to:

(a)create a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial;1 and/or

(b)endanger the safety of any person.2

The Crown case

[3] The Crown case is as follows. Mr Turei, who was a patched member of the Tribesmen gang, was travelling by motorbike to attend a wedding reception of a couple associated with the Tribesmen on Saturday, 26 November 2016. The wedding reception was taking place at the Waihau Bay Fishing Club. There had been tension earlier in the day between Tribesmen gang members travelling to the wedding and the local chapter of the Mongrel Mob gang, who occupied a gang pad en route.

[4] Mr Turei rode past the Mongrel Mob gang pad, wearing his Tribesmen gang patch. Mr Taiapa took exception to this. He allegedly pursued Mr Turei in a Honda Odyssey motor vehicle, ultimately driving Mr Turei’s motorbike off the road, causing it to crash into a ditch. Mr Turei died from injuries that he suffered in the crash.

1 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 200(2)(d).
2 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 200(2)(e).

Name suppression – general principles

[5]Section 200 of the Act envisages a two-step process:3

(a)First, the Court must determine if one of the consequences listed in s 200(2) would be likely to follow if no order for suppression were made.

(b)Second, the Court must determine whether it is appropriate, in all the circumstances, to exercise its discretion to forbid publication of the defendant’s name.

[6] At least one of the listed consequences in s 200(2) must be “likely” to occur. The Court of Appeal has emphasised that this is essentially a question of common sense.4 It will be sufficient…

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 Taiapa

Details

AGLC: R v Taiapa [2017] NZHC 3067
Case: [2017] NZHC 3067
Decision Date: 11 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Andre Robert Taiapa has applied for continued name suppression in relation to a charge of murder. The court was required to determine whether publication of his name would create a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial or endanger the safety of any person. The court found that publication of Mr Taiapa’s name was not likely to create a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial because there were no further identification witnesses who had not already been spoken to by the police. The court also found that publication of Mr Taiapa’s name was not likely to endanger his safety or the safety of his family. The court declined the application for continued name suppression but granted an interim order continuing name suppression until the determination of any appeal or the expiry of the period specified for filing a notice of appeal.

The court ordered that the reasons for judgment could not be published in news media, on the internet, or on any other publicly available database until the final disposition of the trial, but could be published in law reports or law digests. This was to protect Mr Taiapa’s fair trial rights.

Orders