R v Tupou - [2025] NZHC 2287

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-004-5814

[2025] NZHC 2287

THE KING

v

SIONE TUPOU

Hearing: 13 August 2025

Appearances:

B D Tantrum and J L Gibson for Crown A M M Ives for Defendant

Sentence:

13 August 2025

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Solicitors/counsel:
Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitors, Auckland A M M Ives, Barrister, Auckland

R v TUPOU [2025] NZHC 2287 [13 August 2025]

[1] Mr Tupou, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to charges of murder1 and being in unlawful possession of a firearm.2 The maximum penalty for the crime of murder is life imprisonment, whilst that for the charge of being in unlawful possession of a firearm is four years imprisonment.

[2] Convictions were not entered when you entered your guilty pleas. I enter them now.

Background

[3] You have pleaded guilty on the basis of an agreed summary of facts. This reveals that your offending has its genesis in an ongoing state of hostility, or feud, between your family and that of the victim. This stretches back as far as 2022. The summary records that, between 19 July 2022 and 25 July 2023, the police attended no fewer than five separate incidents involving violence between the two families. Several of these involved firearms being discharged at addresses occupied by members of your family.

[4] The report your counsel has tendered under s 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002 expands on the historic hostility between the two families. It is quite clear that you are before the Court today only because of this particular factor.

[5] On Saturday 13 July 2024, you and two associates travelled in a vehicle to a liquor store in Mount Wellington. You and one of the other occupants of the vehicle went into the liquor store and purchased a quantity of beer. You returned to the vehicle and placed the beer in the boot. You then got back into the left rear passenger seat of the vehicle. As you were placing the beer in the boot of the vehicle the victim, Mr Texas Doctor, parked his vehicle a short distance away. Another vehicle was parked between your vehicle and Mr Doctor’s vehicle.

[6] As your vehicle began reversing out of the carpark, Mr Doctor left his vehicle and began to walk towards the liquor store. He recognised someone in your vehicle and acknowledged them by nodding his head. As soon as you saw Mr Doctor, you

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 167(a).
2 Arms Act 1983, s 45(1).

opened the door of your vehicle even though it was still moving. This prompted Mr Doctor to immediately turn around and return to the driver’s seat of his vehicle.

[7] You then got out of your vehicle and walked towards Mr Doctor, carrying a firearm in your right hand. The type of firearm you were carrying cannot be ascertained because it has never been recovered. Whatever it was,…

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 Tupou

Details

AGLC: R v Tupou [2025] NZHC 2287
Case: [2025] NZHC 2287
Decision Date: 13 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the defendant, Sione Tupou, was sentenced following a guilty plea to charges of murder and being in unlawful possession of a firearm. Tupou had admitted to shooting Mr. Texas Doctor, resulting in his death, and possessing a firearm without a licence. The court considered the maximum penalties for these crimes, which are life imprisonment for murder and four years for unlawful possession of a firearm. The court acknowledged the long-standing feud between Tupou's family and the victim's family, which had led to multiple violent incidents over a period of time. The court also noted the devastating impact of the crime on the victim's family.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Tupou, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors present in the case. The aggravating factors included the use of a firearm, the close range at which the shots were fired, and the ongoing family feud. The mitigating factors included Tupou's guilty plea, his relative youth, and the remorse he had expressed. The court considered the starting point for the minimum term of imprisonment to be 12 and a half years, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the aggravating factors. However, the court also applied reductions for the mitigating factors, resulting in a final minimum term of 11 years imprisonment. Tupou was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder charge and three years for the firearms charge, to be served concurrently, and a firearms prohibition order was made under the Arms Act 1983.

The court concluded that the appropriate sentence for Tupou was life imprisonment for the murder charge, with a minimum term of 11 years before parole eligibility, and three years imprisonment for the firearms charge, to be served concurrently. The court also made a firearms prohibition order under the Arms Act 1983. The court acknowledged the devastating impact of the crime on the victim's family and the community, and emphasised the importance of holding offenders accountable for their actions and protecting the community from further harm.

Orders