[2] At about 5 o’clock on 20 February 2015, you were at an address in Norrie Street, Hamilton with Mr Williams. Mr Thompson and his friend Mr Apanui drove to Norrie Street after finishing work for the day. You were 17 at the time. Mr Thompson was in his late 20’s. You are affiliated to the Mongrel Mob gang. Mr Thompson was affiliated with Black Power.

[3] Mr Thompson directed an inflammatory comment towards Mr Williams. Mr Williams then smashed the front passenger side window of Mr Apanui’s vehicle. The two men in the vehicle then got out. Mr Apanui threw a bottle at the back of Mr Williams’ head. Both sides were throwing bins and bricks at each other.

[4] Mr Thompson and Mr Apanui then chased Mr Williams who ran back into the house. Mr Williams came back shortly afterwards together with you, carrying ornamental swords. Mr Thompson and Mr Apanui took the swords from you.

[5] Mr Thompson and Mr Apanui chased you and Mr Williams back inside the property on a second occasion. This time, you came out of the house with a slug gun. You knew it was unloaded. Mr Thompson got hold of the slug gun and shot it in the air.

[6] You then ran back inside and came out with a .22 calibre rifle with a sawn off barrel. At this point, Mr Apanui and Mr Thompson were walking off the front lawn of the property towards the footpath. You fired one shot.

[7] Mr Thompson sought shelter behind a large steel power box located on the boundary of the address. You aimed the rifle at Mr Thompson from a distance of

about 10 feet. Someone told you not to shoot. You pulled the trigger. The shot hit Mr Thompson in the face, causing a fatal wound. Mr Thompson dropped to the footpath and died very shortly afterwards. You then ran from the scene.

[8] During the trial, you accepted that you were blameworthy for taking Mr Thompson’s life. However, you said you did not intend to do so and you did not act recklessly. You said you were intimidated by the two older men. You said you intended to scare the men off. You wanted to make them get in the car. You said you accidentally shot Mr Thompson.

[9] The jury’s verdict of murder means that it rejected the defence of…

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 Te Tomo

Details

AGLC: R v Te Tomo [2015] NZHC 2671
Case: [2015] NZHC 2671
Decision Date: 30 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Te Tomo involved Tyson-Tainui Rukuwai Te Tomo, who was convicted of the murder of Michael Thompson. Te Tomo was affiliated with the Mongrel Mob gang and Thompson was affiliated with Black Power. The incident occurred on February 20, 2015, when Thompson and his friend Apanui drove to Norrie Street, Hamilton. Te Tomo fired a shot from a .22 calibre rifle, which resulted in Thompson's fatal injury. Te Tomo claimed he did not intend to kill Thompson but wanted to scare the older men off. However, the jury rejected this defence and found Te Tomo guilty of murder.

The legal issues in this case centred around the appropriate sentence for Te Tomo, given his conviction for murder. The court considered various factors, including the purposes and principles of sentencing, the gravity of the offence, and the minimum term of imprisonment. The court also took into account the victim impact statements and the personal circumstances of Te Tomo.

The court found that the appropriate sentence for Te Tomo was life imprisonment. The court considered the aggravating factors such as the use of a lethal weapon, the extent of the loss, and Te Tomo's involvement with the Mongrel Mob. However, the court did not treat Te Tomo's gang affiliation as an aggravating factor. The court also considered the mitigating factors, such as Te Tomo's youth and background, but did not accept a discount for remorse. The court determined that a minimum term of 10.5 years was appropriate.

In conclusion, Te Tomo was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum parole period of 10.5 years. The court acknowledged that the sentence of life imprisonment was not manifestly unjust, and that the minimum term was necessary to hold Te Tomo accountable for the harm done to the community, denounce his conduct, and protect the community from him. The court also recognised the profound impact of the murder on the Thompson family and the wider community.

Orders