A man who initially evaded conviction for aggravated robbery after claiming he didn’t intend to permanently steal a vehicle has now been found guilty following a review by the High Court and a subsequent reconsideration by the District Court. Peter George Junior Laupama was initially found not guilty by Judge Joanne Wickliffe, but that decision was overturned after the Crown appealed.
The Crime
On November 13, 2023, Laupama posed as a Jehovah’s Witness before forcibly entering the Rotorua home of a terminally ill man. He brandished a firearm and stole a bag containing the victim’s medication for his heart disease and $200. Laupama then demanded the victim’s car keys, threatening “a few punches” before returning the vehicle. He attempted to compel the victim to accompany him, but the man fled to a neighbor’s house.
Laupama was later apprehended after the victim spotted him in a Rotorua bar, Crates N Cues, in the pokies room and alerted authorities. He pleaded not guilty to aggravated robbery.
The Legal Challenge
The initial trial hinged on the question of intent. Judge Wickliffe initially ruled that Laupama did not intend to permanently deprive the victim of his car. However, Justice Michele Wilkinson-Smith of the High Court disagreed, stating that intending to return property only upon the fulfillment of a condition imposed by the offender constitutes intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property.
Following the High Court’s direction, Judge Wickliffe reconsidered the case on February 10, hearing arguments from Crown prosecutor Anna McConachy and defence counsel Tim Braithwaite. She ultimately found Laupama guilty of aggravated robbery and remanded him in custody pending sentencing on June 9.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the initial ruling in this case?
Judge Joanne Wickliffe initially found Peter George Junior Laupama not guilty of aggravated robbery.
Why was the case sent back to the District Court?
The High Court overturned the initial decision, ruling that the judge was incorrect in her assessment of intent, and directed the case be reconsidered.
What is the next step in this case?
Peter George Junior Laupama will be sentenced on June 9.
How might this case influence future interpretations of aggravated robbery charges involving conditional return of property?
