The case was heard originally in Rotorua District Court last year, and reheard there earlier this month. Photo / NZME
The case was heard originally in Rotorua District Court last year, and reheard there earlier this month. Photo / NZME
A man who posed as as a Jehovah’s Witness and stole a terminally ill man’s car at gunpoint thought he had avoided being held criminally responsible.
Judge Joanne Wickliffe found Peter George Junior Laupama not guilty of aggravated robbery after a judge-only trial in Rotorua DistrictCourt early last year.
But she has now reversed her verdict after the High Court ordered her to take another look at the case.
On November 13, 2023, Laupama, posing as a Jehovah’s Witness, knocked on the victim’s door in Rotorua.
Moments later, he kicked open the door and pointed a gun at the man who lived there.
He took a bag containing the victim’s medication for his terminal heart disease and $200. He also tried to force the man to accompany him.
“You are to start working for me. You will make me $900 per week. You are coming with me,” Laupama told the victim.
Laupama demanded that he hand over his car keys. He told him he was going to receive “a few punches” from someone and that, when that was done, he would get his car back.
The victim told Laupama to take his car, but Laupama told him to accompany him in it.
As the victim followed Laupama to the car, he saw a chance to flee and ran to his neighbour’s house.
Laupama drove away in the man’s car, which was later found abandoned a short distance away.
The victim was in Rotorua bar Crates N Cues the next day when he spotted Laupama in the pokies room.
He phoned the police, and Laupama was arrested.
The victim died a month later.
Laupama pleaded not guilty to aggravated robbery and took the matter to a trial at the start of last year.
Judge Wickliffe found the victim’s identification of Laupama, which he gave to police before he died, was reliable and that Laupama was the offender involved in the matter.
However, she found Laupama had not intended to deprive the man 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,” she said in her first decision.
She found Laupama did not intend to permanently deprive him of the car, so the charge was not proven.
Crown appeals decision
The Crown appealed to the High Court, arguing that the judge was wrong.
Justice Michele Wilkinson-Smith agreed.
She ruled that an intent to take property on the basis that it would be returned only upon the performance of some condition, which an offender had no right to impose, was sufficient to establish an intent to deprive the victim permanently of the property.
Justice Wilkinson-Smith overturned Judge Wickliffe’s decision and asked 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.
Justice Michele Wilkinson-Smith.
Judge Wickliffe reconsidered the case on February 10, hearing submissions from Crown prosecutor Anna McConachy and defence counsel Tim Braithwaite.
In delivering her finding, she said she was now satisfied that, at the time of taking the vehicle, Laupama intended to permanently deprive the victim of his vehicle unless conditions were complied with.
She found him guilty of aggravated robbery and remanded him in custody for sentencing on June 9.
Kelly Makiha is a senior journalist who has reported for the Rotorua Daily Post for more than 25 years, covering mainly police, court, human interest and social issues.
