R v Tapaevalu

Case [2019] NZHC 1867


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-092-005114

[2019] NZHC 1867

THE QUEEN

v

FILILAU TAPAEVALU MESUI TUFUI

Hearing: 2 August 2019

Appearances:

G Kayes and C Robertson for Crown S Wimsett for Mr Tapaevalu

P Borich QC and T D Clee for Mr Tufui

Judgment:

2 August 2019


SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J


R v TAPAEVALU & TUFUI [2019] NZHC 1867 [2 August 2019]

[1]                  Mr Tufui and Mr Tapaevalu, you were found guilty by a jury on charges of murder and attempted murder. As you are well aware, those charges carry maximum sentences of life imprisonment and 14 years imprisonment respectively.

[2]                  Prior to your trial, Mr Tufui, you also pleaded guilty to a charge of being in possession of 1.7 grams of methamphetamine. The maximum sentence for that charge is one of six months imprisonment.

[3]                  Mr Tapaevalu, you pleaded guilty to two charges of being in possession of methamphetamine for supply. These related to two quantities of methamphetamine found at your address when the police searched it. One of these comprised 16.5 grams of methamphetamine and the other comprised 1.1 grams. In addition, you pleaded guilty to two charges of being in unlawful possession of firearms. These were found at an address in Te Atatu to which I will refer later in my remarks. They were the weapons used in the offending to which I am about to turn.

The facts

[4]                  The charges relate to an incident that occurred in the late evening of 30 April 2017 and running into the early hours of the following morning. The incident had its genesis, however, in the events of the previous few days. You were charged originally with a man called Mr Taani, and I need to factor in his involvement in the offending of which you have been found guilty because he played a very important part.

[5]                  Mr Taani was a patched member of the Comancheros gang and the evidence makes it clear that he was involved in the supply of methamphetamine in a reasonably substantial way. Mr Tapaevalu, you were also involved in the supply of drugs and also in a reasonably commercial way. You dealt with Mr Taani in that capacity. Mr Tufui, you were regarded as a “runner” for Mr Tapaevalu, which I take to be a person lower down in the drug dealing order.

[6]                  The male victim in this case, Mr Tu’uheava, had lived in Australia for some years. He returned to New Zealand and became involved in dealing methamphetamine. It is clear from the evidence that he sought to make contact with the Comancheros organisation because he viewed it as a source of methamphetamine

that he could sell on to others. At that stage he was obtaining methamphetamine from other sources in Auckland and selling it, it would seem, in the South Island.

[7]                  Your group’s involvement with Mr Tu’uheava began 27 April 2017 when Mr Taani made…

Continue reading R v Tapaevalu

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Tapaevalu [2019] NZHC 1867
Case
[2019] NZHC 1867
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Filifau Tapaevalu Mesui Tufui and Mr. Tufui were found guilty of murder and attempted murder, with the former facing a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and the latter a maximum of 14 years imprisonment. Prior to the trial, Mr. Tufui had pleaded guilty to being in possession of 1.7 grams of methamphetamine, with a maximum sentence of six months imprisonment. Mr. Tapaevalu had pleaded guilty to two charges of being in possession of methamphetamine for supply and two charges of being in unlawful possession of firearms. The court found that there was no premeditated plan to kill Mr. Tu’uheava and that the incident was initially a meeting to discuss a drug dealing transaction. The court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment on both Mr. Tufui and Mr. Tapaevalu, with the former required to serve 19 years and the latter 17 years before being eligible to apply for parole. Both were also sentenced to concurrent sentences on the other charges they had pleaded guilty to.

The legal issues the court was required to decide were whether there was a premeditated plan to kill Mr. Tu’uheava, the minimum term of imprisonment for murder, and the sentences for the other charges. The court reasoned that there was no premeditated plan to kill Mr. Tu’uheava and that the minimum term of imprisonment for murder should reflect the overall culpability of the offending. The court also considered the victim impact statements and the aggravating factors of the offending. The court imposed concurrent sentences on the other charges.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.