Laupama demanded the victim hand over his car keys and told him he was going to receive “a few punches” from someone and when that was done, he would get his car back.
The victim asked for his medication but was told, “I don’t give a f***”.
However, his bag was then returned to him without anything being removed.
The victim told Laupama to take his car but he was ordered to also get in it.
As the victim followed Laupama to the vehicle, he saw an opportunity to flee and ran to his neighbour’s house.
Peter George Junior Laupama’s trial was held in the Rotorua District Court. Photo / Andrew Warner
The police were called and the victim watched as Laupama drove away in his car.
It was later found abandoned a short distance away.
The day after the incident on November 14, 2023, the victim was in a Rotorua bar when he spotted Laupama in the pokies room.
He phoned the police and Laupama was subsequently arrested.
One month later, the victim died.
However, his identification of Laupama was later used as hearsay evidence in a judge-alone trial of Laupama on a charge of aggravated robbery, relating to his stealing the man’s car.
A recently released High Court decision outlined the trial, as well as the Crown’s subsequent appeal against the outcome.
According to the decision, Judge Joanne Wickliffe presided over the trial in the Rotorua District Court earlier this year.
She found the victim’s identification of Laupama reliable and that he was the offender involved in the matter.
However, the judge found Laupama had not intended to deprive the victim of his vehicle permanently.
“Even though he did take the vehicle and did not return it or otherwise take steps to reunite [the victim] with his vehicle, I must consider his intent at the time he was with [the victim] pointing a firearm at him and telling him to get into the car.”
Justice Michele Wilkinson-Smith considered the Crown’s appeal. Photo / Bevan Conley
The judge considered the victim’s call to 111 during which he said: “I didn’t steal from him, I don’t even know – never met him before in my life and then he was forcing me to get into the car ‘cause he said I’m gonna go with him and I’m gonna get a hiding from someone and then I could have my car.”
She also noted the victim’s written statement that said Laupama had said he was going to take him “to get a few punches” and then he would get his car back.
“On [the victim’s] own evidence, Mr Laupama did not intend to permanently deprive him of that vehicle and so, for that reason, the charge is not proven,” the judge found.
Judge Wickliffe acquitted him of the aggravated robbery charge.
The Crown appealed to the High Court against the decision, arguing the judge was wrong to have reasoned Laupama did not have an intent to permanently deprive the victim of his vehicle on the basis he intended to return it if the victim accompanied him.
It also submitted the judge failed to consider whether the charge should have been amended to aggravated burglary.
Laupama’s counsel opposed the appeal, saying Judge Wickliffe was correct to find the Crown had failed to prove an essential element of the charge, and had there been consideration of an amendment, further submissions and potentially evidence would have been necessary.
The High Court’s decision stated an intent to take property on the basis that it would be returned only upon the performance of some condition, which an offender has no right to impose, was sufficient to establish an intent to deprive the victim permanently of the property.
“The offender has such intent in the event that the victim does not do as the offender says,” the decision stated.
“The fact that the intent is conditional does not mean that it is not an existing intent at the time the property was taken.”
In her decision, Justice Michele Wilkinson-Smith differed from Judge Wickliffe, finding the charge of aggravated robbery had been made out on the facts that Judge Wickliffe found proved.
“I consider that a failure to address the issue of conditional intent did amount to an error,” Justice Wilkinson-Smith determined.
“Further, if I am wrong about that I agree that the proper course was substitution of a charge of aggravated burglary.”
Justice Wilkinson-Smith ordered the case be sent back to the District Court for reconsideration as to whether there was conditional intent on Laupama’s part to deprive the victim of his property.
If the court finds no such intent existed, it would need to consider whether the charge should be amended to aggravated burglary, “which would appear to be clearly established on the factual findings already made”, Justice Wilkinson-Smith stated.
The case is scheduled to be recalled next month.
Tara Shaskey joined NZME in 2022 as an Open Justice news director and journalist based in Taranaki. She has been a reporter since 2014 and previously worked at Stuff covering crime and justice, arts and entertainment, and Māori issues.