NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ANY PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS WHO IS A COMPLAINANT OR WHO APPEARED AS A WITNESS PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA
SC 48/2024 [2025] NZSC 70
BETWEEN
TRISTAN LEE TAMATI Appellant
AND
THE KING Respondent
Hearing:
25 February 2025
Court:
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, Williams, Kós and Miller JJ
Counsel:
J E L Carruthers and S J Bird for Appellant A J Ewing and M J Lillico for Respondent
Ground 1: Did errors by trial counsel lead to a miscarriage of justice?
[31]
Discussion
[34]
Ground 2: Was a reliability warning required in the circumstances?
[49]
Discussion
[52]
Result
[57]
Two men, aged 41 and 25 years, and three teenage girls, two aged 15 years, all fuelled by drugs and alcohol, partied overnight at a house. The upshot was the older man, Mr Tamati, being convicted of twice sexually violating the 15-year-old complainant—initially in a car and later in a bedroom—as well as doing an indecent act on her and supplying her methamphetamine.
The defence advanced was one of fabrication by the complainant, on the basis her complaint was made to mitigate a later violent but mistaken attack on Mr Tamati by two of her relatives when the real culprit—if there was one—was the other man at the house.
Mr Tamati was convicted on all charges and transferred to the High Court for sentence. In that Court, Simon France J sentenced him to preventive detention given his history of serious sexual assaults and his elevated risk of reoffending.[1]
We start with the narrative evidence, before summarising the trial and appeal below.
Factual background
Mr Tamati was found guilty of five charges of sexual offending against the 15‑year‑old complainant: two charges of sexual violation by rape, two charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and one charge of doing an indecent act on a young person.[4] He was also convicted of one representative charge of supplying methamphetamine to the complainant.[5]
[4]Crimes…
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 Tamati v The King
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Tamati v The King [2025] NZSC 70
Case
[2025] NZSC 70
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed an appeal against conviction by Tristan Lee Tamati, who had been found guilty of multiple charges of sexual offending and drug supply against a 15-year-old complainant. The Court considered two main grounds of appeal: whether errors by trial counsel led to a miscarriage of justice, and whether a reliability warning was required regarding the intoxication of the complainant and a witness. The Court found that while the closing address by defence counsel was not perfect, it was not deficient to the extent of causing a miscarriage of justice. The Court also concluded that a reliability warning was not necessary as the potential unreliability of the intoxicated witnesses' evidence was sufficiently apparent to the jury without a specific direction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.