Te Tomo v The King - [2025] NZSC 143

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 86/2025
[2025] NZSC 143

BETWEEN	TYSON‑TANUI RUKUWAI TE TOMO Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Counsel:	W C Pyke for Applicant K B Bell for Respondent
Judgment:	16 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

Mr Te Tomo was convicted in 2015 of murder (having shot the victim) and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 10 years and six months.[1] The jury, by their verdict, rejected Mr Te Tomo’s contention at trial that there was a reasonable possibility that the gun went off accidentally.
[1]R v Te Tomo [2015] NZHC 2671 (Hinton J) [Sentencing notes].
On 30 July 2016 (some nine months out of time), Mr Te Tomo filed an appeal against conviction and sentence in the Court of Appeal. He was granted an extension of time to appeal and in 2017 his appeal against conviction was dismissed.[2] The conviction appeal was advanced on the basis that self-defence should have been left to the jury. This contention was rejected by the Court because:[3]
… the factual narrative supports neither the existence of an imminent threat to life (Mr Te Tomo’s or his friends’), nor a connection between any perceived acts and Mr Te Tomo’s use of the firearm.
[2]Te Tomo v R [2017] NZCA 338 (Winkelmann, Brewer and Peters JJ) [Conviction appeal].
[3]At [35].
The sentence appeal was not dealt with at the same time as the conviction appeal for reasons which are unclear. In March 2024, Mr Te Tomo took steps to bring the sentence appeal on for hearing. The sentence appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 3 July 2025.[4]
[4]Te Tomo vR [2025] NZCA 295 (Woolford, Jagose and Powell JJ) [Sentence appeal].
The Court declined an application to adduce further evidence on appeal in the form of affidavits from Mr Te Tomo and a neuropsychologist, Dr Erin Eggleston. This was on the basis that the evidence was not sufficiently fresh or cogent to be admitted. This material was, however, considered by the Court in its decision.[5]
[5]At [35].
Mr Te Tomo now seeks leave to appeal to this Court against the Court of Appeal’s decision on his sentence appeal. He wishes to argue that he should not have been sentenced to life imprisonment.

Background[6]

[6]For a fuller background, see Conviction appeal, above n 2, at [3]–[15]. These paragraphs were quoted by the Court of Appeal in the Sentence appeal, above n 4, at [7]. The background in the Sentencing notes, above n 1, at [2]–[7] is different in some respects but the factual differences between the two accounts are not material for the purposes of deciding Mr Te Tomo’s application for leave to appeal.

Mr Te Tomo (affiliated with the Mongrel Mob and then aged 17) was with a friend, Mr Williams, at a…

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 Te Tomo v The King

Details

AGLC: Te Tomo v The King [2025] NZSC 143
Case: [2025] NZSC 143
Decision Date: 16 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tyson-Tanuiwa Rukuwai Te Tomo has applied for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing his appeal against sentence. The Court of Appeal held that the sentence of life imprisonment for Mr Te Tomo, with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 10 years and six months, was not manifestly unjust. Mr Te Tomo was convicted of murder for shooting the victim in the face, an act which he argued was not premeditated. The Court of Appeal rejected Mr Te Tomo’s argument that he should not have been sentenced to life imprisonment, concluding that it was not manifestly unjust. The Court of Appeal considered whether the sentence was consistent with the law after the decision in Dickey v R. The Court found that Mr Te Tomo’s personal circumstances did not warrant a departure from the sentence of life imprisonment, noting that Mr Te Tomo had been serving his sentence without apparent difficulty. The Court found that there was no risk of a miscarriage of justice and that no point of general or public importance arose. The Supreme Court considered the submissions of Mr Te Tomo and the Crown and concluded that there was no point of general or public importance and no risk of a miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court also found that the case was distinguishable from the cases relied upon by Mr Te Tomo. The Supreme Court did not consider it appropriate to consider for the first time on a second appeal without the benefit of full consideration by the Court of Appeal, arguments relating to the conditions of Mr Te Tomo’s imprisonment.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Orders