He went over and ingratiated himself with the group the woman had joined, then was seen walking her away with an arm around her shoulder.
Judge David Ruth said at sentencing it appeared Metuala had already decided on some sort of sexual encounter.
He said despite the complainant’s level of intoxication she was concerned about the unwanted attention and had the presence of mind to instead head to an area near the police station.
When Metuala realised she was seeking help from the police he “took off”, going to hide at a nearby BP station.
“When you saw the police weren’t following, you struck, and what followed was a humiliating and degrading sexual violation,” Judge Ruth said.
The victim had left the station, as the doors were locked at that time of night, and headed to the petrol station to buy food and cigarettes. The station was also closed.
She came across Metuala and spoke with him before he attacked, violently raping her on the forecourt of the petrol station.
A jury found Metuala guilty of raping the then-51-year-old, but not guilty of strangling her - though Judge Ruth said he was satisfied the strangling had happened.
Metuala appeared by audio visual link in the Court of Appeal in Wellington this morning to appeal his conviction and sentence.
His lawyer, Ethan Huda, said no single comment made by Judge Ruth caused an unfair trial, but the “cumulative effect” of his comments did.
He said it was not a case of whether a yellow or red card should have been issued, but instead the umpire had entered the fray himself, and should not have done so.
Huda pointed to some examples, including where the judge asked the victim directly if she had accepted money for sex, would she then have wanted to have that sex on a gas station forecourt.
That question was the “starting point of the inappropriate interruptions”.
He said Judge Ruth also asked questions of Metuala that “portrayed him as a rogue”, and also asked him questions revealing Metuala, as a seasonal worker, was not permitted to be drinking out in town that night.
The judge elicited facts that “undermined the defence case and effectively assassinated the appellant’s character”.
He also said the judge interrupted the defence closing address, and that such interruptions were rare. However it was not the interruption that was the issue, but the fact the judge interrupted to highlight a crucial piece of evidence for the Crown case.
Justice David Williams of the Court of Appeal questioned whether it was necessary to instruct defence counsel to read out parts of evidence that did not help their case, and Justice Muir said it “almost looks like a counsel humiliation in front of the jury”.
However, Justice Williams noted Metuala was found not guilty of the charge those parts of evidence related to.
Crown lawyer Jo Mildenhall told the court the trial judge’s comments were legitimate and appropriate and that he was not required to remain as “inscrutable as a sphinx”.
The Court of Appeals judges have reserved their decision.
Melissa Nightingale is a Wellington-based reporter who covers crime, justice and news in the capital. She joined the Herald in 2016 and has worked as a journalist for 10 years.
