R v Lama

[2025] NZHC 2059

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-004-004331

[2025] NZHC 2059

THE KING

v

ISRAEL LAMA SAMUEL LAMA SEFILINO FULI LAMA

HARMON MARCELLUS MATILA UNASA JADE JEROME

NATHAN LAURIE TIMOTHY TUAITI

Hearing:

30 July 2025 and 1 August 2025

Counsel:

HDL Steele and PR McNabb for Crown MA Edgar for Defendant Israel Lama

SM Kilian and K Bergh for Defendant Samuel Lama (sentenced 1 August 2025)

VJ Feyen for Defendant Sefilino Lama JS Kovacevich for Defendant Unasa ID Tucker for Defendant Jerome

AG Speed and J-AE Tulloch for Defendant Tuaiti

Judgment:

30 July 2025

SENTENCING REMARKS OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:

Crown Solicitor, Auckland. Tucker & Co, Auckland.

Richmond Legal Service, Auckland. MA Edgar, Auckland.

VJ Feyen, Auckland.

SM Kilian, Auckland.
K Bergh, Auckland.

JS Kovacevich, Auckland.

AG Speed, Auckland.

R v LAMA [2025] NZHC 2059 [30 July 2025]

A note to readers

[1]                  I sentenced five of the defendants on Wednesday, 30 July 2025: Israel Lama and Sefilino Lama at 10 am; Jade Jerome and Harmon Unasa at  midday;  and Nathan Tuaiti at 2.15 pm.   I sentenced a sixth defendant, Samuel Lama, on Friday,   1 August 2025 (to accommodate a fixture clash in relation to his lawyer). This lightly edited document draws together, in one place, my sentencing remarks from those four occasions.1 My reasoning is, of course, unchanged.

[2]Israel Lama, Samuel Lama, and Sefilino Lama are brothers.

Charges

[3]                  Israel Lama is for sentence for kidnapping,2 two offences of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm,3 two of injuring with intent to injure,4 and one of assault with a weapon.5

[4]                  Samuel Lama is for sentence for kidnapping, two offences of injuring with intent to injure, and one of assault with a weapon.

[5]                  Sefilino Lama is for sentence for kidnapping, one offence of injuring with intent to injure, and one of assault with a weapon.

[6]                  Mr Unasa, Mr Tuaiti and Mr Jerome are for sentence for kidnapping, two offences of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, two of injuring with intent to injure, and one of assault with a weapon. Mr Jerome is also for sentence on an additional offence of assault with a weapon.

Background

[7]The facts are disturbing.

1      These remarks reference the defendants in the third person, whereas I spoke directly to all at sentencing.

2      Crimes Act 1961, ss 66 and 209: maximum penalty; 14 years’ imprisonment.

3      Crimes Act, ss 66 and 188(1): maximum penalty; 14 years’ imprisonment.

4      Crimes Act, ss 66 and 189(1): maximum penalty; 10 years’ imprisonment.

5      Crimes Act, ss 66 and 202C: maximum penalty; five years’ imprisonment.

[8]                  In the early hours of Sunday, 28 May 2023, the victim, who has permanent name suppression and whom I call X, was in the Auckland CBD. X had been socialising with friends. At some point, he encountered the girlfriend of Israel Lama and slapped her on the bottom. Israel Lama took exception to that.

[9]                  At approximately 4.20 that morning, X was called over to Israel Lama’s group. Israel Lama told X that he and they would go and check the closed-circuit television footage at the venue. X agreed to go, albeit he suspected, correctly, that was not the real intention. X was directed to sit in the back of a car. Israel Lama, Sefilino Lama, and Mr Unasa were in the car.

Charge 1: kidnapping: all defendants

[10]              X was driven to an address in Helensville. The trip took some time, by which I mean approximately one hour. Mr Tuaiti and Samuel Lama went to the address in a separate car, approximately 20 minutes later. The agreed summaries of fact do not record when Mr Jerome arrived at the address, but nothing turns on this. Mr Jerome was present at all important times.

[11]              The address was plainly connected to the Head Hunters gang. I say this because X noticed signs and emblems denoting that gang.

[12]              X was taken to a room downstairs. Two defendants unidentified by the agreed summaries guarded him, holding knives.

[13]              Once in that room, X was made to strip naked. He was also made to sit on a camp-style chair. Israel Lama directed Mr Jerome to tie X’s hands and feet with cable. Mr Jerome did so. By this stage, all defendants were present.

Charge 2: first wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm: Israel Lama;
Mr Unasa; Mr Tuaiti; and Mr Jerome

[14]              Once X was restrained, Israel Lama got an electric impact driver fitted with a screwdriver chuck. Israel Lama then drilled three separate holes in X’s leg while he was held by Mr Jerome, Mr Unasa, and Mr Tuaiti. While the chuck did not hold a

(threaded) drill bit, Israel Lama used the driver with such force that the chuck penetrated X’s flesh and muscle by approximately one centimetre.

[15]              While doing this, Israel Lama questioned X whether he had slapped his girlfriend’s bottom. Other members of the group used mobile phones to film what was happening.

[16]              Israel Lama then directed others to get toilet paper and tape to cover the wounds. Given what follows, it is unlikely that was an act of compassion.

Charge 3: second wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm: Israel Lama;
Mr Unasa; Mr Tuaiti; and Mr Jerome

[17]              Israel Lama then retrieved a large kitchen knife. It had been heated on a nearby gas burner. The blade was extremely hot. Israel Lama cut X’s chest with the knife. He then used the blade to burn X’s chest, then face. The other defendants held X down throughout.

Charge 4: injuring with intent to injure: Israel Lama; Samuel Lama; Mr Unasa; and Mr Tuaiti

[18]              Israel Lama directed X to get onto the floor. Israel Lama then repeatedly assaulted X by kicking his head and body. The other defendants joined in.

[19]              Ricky Harder, who had come to the address a little earlier, then used an aluminium pole to beat X about his body and head. The pole was passed around. Israel Lama, Mr Unasa, and Mr Tuaiti also used the pole to assault X. The pole bent in the process. The defendants taunted X for “breaking” the pole and joked they would beat him more for doing so.

[20]              The defendants, including Samuel Lama, then punched and kicked X to the body and head. That assault continued until Israel Lama told everyone to stop.

Charge 5: assault with a weapon: all defendants

[21]              Israel Lama then told another defendant to retrieve a  jug  of  hot  water.  Israel Lama instructed the others to hold X. Israel Lama then began pouring hot water

onto  X’s bare skin.    As  will  be  recalled,  X  was  bound and naked.    Mr Unasa, Mr Jerome, and Mr Tuaiti held X throughout.

[22]              Israel Lama told X to confess to slapping his girlfriend’s bottom. Israel Lama poured hot water onto X’s already seared chest, then onto his genitals.

[23]              During this sequence, Sefilino Lama used his foot to push X against the wall; and Samuel Lama filmed using his phone.

[24]              Israel Lama emptied the jug of its contents. Another defendant then splashed cold water on X.

Charge 6: assault with a weapon: Mr Jerome only

[25]              At some point, and it is not clear exactly when,  Mr Jerome got  a hammer. Mr Jerome repeatedly struck X’s legs, shins, and knees with the hammer. The assaults caused extreme pain. X had difficulty walking when he was later moved by the defendants.

Charge 7: injuring with intent to injure: all defendants except Sefilino Lama

[26]              X had been wearing a belt before he was made to undress. Israel Lama took the belt and repeatedly whipped X’s back with it. Israel Lama passed the belt to others, who each took a turn. The belt was used so the buckle made contact, causing welts and bruises to X’s back and bottom.

[27]              At some point, Israel Lama and others left the room. Samuel Lama and Sefilino Lama remained to stand guard. X asked them if he could get dressed because he was cold. They declined his request.

[28]              After what the agreed summaries describes as “an extended period of time”, Israel Lama returned. He told X to lie on his stomach. Israel Lama then whipped X again with the belt. He verbally abused X while he did so. He made racial slurs and commented about slavery. The other defendants were present — and offered encouragement. Israel Lama handed the belt to others, who again used it to assault X.

Charge 8: injuring with intent to injure: Sefilino Lama only

[29]              This brings me to the final offence which concerns Sefilino Lama only. X tried to loosen his restraints whilst bound. Sefilino Lama struck X twice across the chest with the belt. He also got a razor and shaved parts of X’s  eyebrows.  Finally, Sefilino Lama took a cigarette and put it on X’s forehead, causing a burn.

Aftermath

[30]              Israel Lama then directed Samuel Lama, Sefilino Lama, and Mr Jerome to take X away: a gang meeting was to happen, and Israel Lama did not want X at the address.

[31]              At some point, Israel Lama uploaded footage of some of the offending to his social media page, appropriately entitled “torturous88”.

[32]One of X’s associates called Israel Lama and demanded X’s release.

[33]              Samuel Lama and Sefilino Lama made X dress, put him into a car, and drove him away. Other defendants were in the car. They drove for a long time, going through or by a fast-food outlet, but failing to buy X food.

[34]              Samuel Lama and Sefilino Lama telephoned Israel Lama to see if they could take X back to the address. They did so, shortly thereafter.

[35]              Israel Lama debated with X as to whether he should let him go. He told X he owed him $20,000, payable before release. X said he could not pay the money, but he would work it off.

[36]              Samuel Lama and Sefilino Lama arrived with food. They gave X some but made him eat it with his hands to further humiliate him.

[37]              X was then directed by Israel Lama to shower. He was then taken by the defendants to the CBD and given to X’s associate, who had contacted Israel Lama. Israel Lama repeated to X that he wanted $20,000, payable within a week.

[38]              X was taken by associates to hospital. Police became involved by chance as they were at the hospital on an unrelated matter.

[39]              Photographs of X’s many injuries comprise part of the agreed summaries. They depict what I have described: torture.

[40]X turned 21 shortly before the offending.

Starting points

[41]              The lead crimes are kidnapping and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, each of which is punishable by a maximum period of 14 years’ imprisonment. The offending is gravely serious. Indeed, it falls within the most serious of cases within each category, at least in relation to Israel Lama.6 I say this for 10 reasons.

[42]First, X was detained for approximately 19 or 20 hours.

[43]              Second, X was subjected to extreme violence throughout. That violence was prolonged, multifaceted, and sadistic. Pleasure was taken in the torture of another human being. On behalf of Mr Tuaiti, Mr Speed, at least in his written submissions, contends extreme violence necessarily requires extreme physical harm. I disagree.

Degree of physical harm is a separate aggravating consideration.7

[44]              Third, the offending was accompanied by a measure of premeditation, active calculation, or both. It did not “just happen”. People are not detained for this length of time or have these things happen without anyone turning their minds to what is going on.

[45]              Fourth, various weapons were used: a drill; a heated knife; a metal pole;     hot water; a hammer; a belt; and a cigarette. In saying this, I am mindful not every defendant used or was party to the use of every weapon.

6      Sentencing Act 2002, s 8(c).

7      See R v Taueki [2005] NZCA 174, [2005] 3 NZLR 372 (CA) at [31(c)].

[46]              Fifth, multiple attackers confronted a victim who was situationally vulnerable, indeed helpless. X was naked, bound, and captive in a gang pad, or at least a gang- related address.

[47]Sixth, repeated blows, including kicks, were directed at X’s head.

[48]              Seventh, the offending involved vigilante action. That X had slapped the bottom of another does not make the offending less serious. I reject the submission it did.

[49]              Eighth, aspects of the offending were filmed, as if X were a trophy, this was acceptable, or both.

[50]              Ninth, Israel Lama attempted to extort money from the victim under implicit threat of further violence. On behalf of Israel Lama, Mr Edgar argued the extortion was not real, and these were just “throw away words”. I reject that submission. The threat was made twice, following horrific violence.

[51]              Tenth, victim impact and more particularly, ongoing psychological harm, perhaps for the rest of X’s life. The point is best captured by X in his own words from an admittedly terse impact statement:

I may have survived physically, but mentally I live with this every day. I don’t sleep. I panic when I hear power tools or raised voices. I flinch in public. I carry the fear that it could happen again.

[52]              The Crown contends gang involvement constitutes another distinct aggravating consideration,  noting  Israel  Lama  is  a  patched  member  of  the  Head Hunters; Mr Tuaiti a patched member of the King Cobras; and other defendants have gang affiliations or connections.  I regard this aspect  as somewhat  peripheral.  I do so because while Head Hunters premises were used by Israel Lama by dint of his gang membership, the offending does not involve inter-gang or intra-gang warfare, and the gang element appears largely coincidental. That Israel Lama appears to have thought his gang connection meant he could act with impunity is troubling but not an aggravating factor.

[53]As required, I considered other cases in identifying the starting points.

I capture those in the footnote below.8

[54]              Israel Lama led the offending from beginning to end, other than in relation to use of the hammer, razor and cigarette. But for his leadership, the offending might not have occurred. As I said earlier, his offending falls within the most serious cases of its kind.9 Because of that, and like cases, I adopt a starting point of 13 years’ imprisonment, one year less than the maximum penalty.

[55]              This brings me to Mr Unasa, Mr Jerome, and Mr Tuaiti. Not all considerations discussed apply to them, but most do. All three were willing and active lieutenants throughout. All participated in the kidnapping; in both woundings with the requisite intent; in the assaults with hot water; and in the use of the belt. Mr Jerome used a hammer on X’s legs; Mr Unasa and Mr Tuaiti,  did  not.  However,  Mr Unasa and Mr Tuaiti actively participated in charge 4, including by using the pole which bent because of the violence inflicted on X. There is then no good reason to distinguish between Mr Unasa, Mr Jerome, and Mr Tuaiti.

[56]              I adopt the Crown’s starting point of 11 years’ imprisonment, which places Mr Unasa, Mr Jerome, and Mr Tuaiti in a bracket near the maximum penalty rather than their proposed starting point of nine years, which would fail to reflect the gravity of what they did.10 I do so to (a) maintain parity with Israel Lama; (b) because, as I have said, their cases are within a very serious bracket, albeit not the most grave; and again, (c) because their proposed nine-year starting point would fail to reflect the gravity of what they did: kidnap and torture.

[57]              Sefilino Lama was 17 years old when he committed the offences, by which I mean kidnapping; assault with the hot water; and injuring with intent to injure on his own: charges 1, 5 and 8. Because of his age, the law confines my ability to impose sentences of imprisonment or home detention on Sefilino Lama other than when an

8      Turner v R [2018] NZCA 175, R v Mulvey [2016] NZHC 2568, R v Keefe [2016] NZHC 2569, Couper v R [2017] NZCA 588, Hourigan v R [2020] NZHC 2753, R v Ohlson [2021] NZHC 3499, R v Blackett [2017] NZHC 1120, Harris v R [2025] NZCA 292.

9      Sentencing Act 2002, s 8(c).

10 Sentencing Act, s 8(d).

offence carries a maximum penalty of at least 14 years’ imprisonment. The only offence within this category is kidnapping.11 For the same reasons, I must be blind to the violence Sefilino Lama inflicted. So, when determining his starting point, I am required to focus exclusively on the kidnapping charge.12

[58]              Sefilino Lama was an active participant in X’s detention. He was present when X was detained, and he stood guard after the first round of whipping with the belt. He refused to let X put his clothes on. He humiliated X by making him eat with his hands. I adopt a starting point of four years’ imprisonment.13 In doing so, I repeat that I am not permitted to have regard to Sefilino Lama’s violence.

[59]              Samuel Lama is in yet another bracket as while he participated in the kidnapping, both injurings, and the assault with the hot water, he did not participate in the woundings of X with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.   On his behalf,      Mr Kilian argues the starting point should be four and a half years’ imprisonment. Mr Kilian relies on Sefilino  Lama’s  starting  point  of  four  years  and  says  Samuel Lama’s offending is not much more serious. Indeed, Mr Kilian says it is arguable Samuel Lama’s culpability is lower than that of Sefilino Lama.

[60]              Samuel Lama arrived at the address (with Mr Tuaiti) 20 minutes after X but before X was made to remove his clothing and bound by Mr Jerome. Samuel Lama was party to X’s kidnapping (charge 1). Samuel Lama kicked and punched X along with Israel Lama, Mr Unasa and Mr Tuaiti, and hence was party to the intentional injuring comprising charge 4, albeit he did not use the pole. Samuel Lama was also party to the assault with the hot water, in which Israel Lama poured that onto X’s bare skin; his already seared chest; and then his genitals. Samuel Lama filmed parts of that sequence. Samuel Lama was also party to the repeated whipping of X, and himself used the belt to whip X (charge 7). He encouraged Israel Lama’s humiliation of X through racial slurs and with Sefilino Lama, guarded X. Thereafter, Samuel Lama drove X, and later made him eat with his hands. As with Sefilino Lama, Samuel Lama had earlier refused to allow X to dress.

11     Sentencing Act, ss 15B and 18 and Diaz v R [2021] NZCA 426.

12     As above.

13     The figure accords that offered by Ms Feyen on behalf of Sefilino Lama. It is also consistent with

R v Reid [2022] NZHC 2440.

[61]              I am unable to adopt Mr Kilian’s proposed starting point. First,  while Sefilino Lama alone injured X by charge 8, Samuel Lama and not Sefinilo Lama committed charges 4 and 7, each of which involved serious, prolonged cowardly violence. Second, Samuel Lama is older than his brother, Sefilino, and Sefilino was likely influenced by both Israel and Samuel. Third, Sefilino Lama’s starting point required me to be blind to his violence, because of his age. That is not so with Samuel Lama. Fourth, another defendant who pleaded guilty earlier, Mr Harder, received a starting point of three and a half years’ imprisonment.14 Mr Harder’s role was appreciably less serious than that of Samuel Lama. Mr Harder arrived much later, then participated briefly in the kidnapping, and in the kicking and hitting with the pole. Mr Harder did not do more and was present for (about) 30 minutes only. Fifth, less serious cases identified by the Crown support its contention of a five and a half-year starting point.15

[62]              That figure is commensurate with Samuel Lama’s culpability and respects parity in relation to the other defendants. I, therefore, adopt it.

1. It follows the global starting points are these:

(a)Israel Lama: 13 years’ imprisonment.

(b)Mr Unasa, Mr Tuaiti and Mr Jerome: 11 years’ imprisonment.

(c)Samuel Lama: five and a half years’ imprisonment.

(d)Sefilino Lama: four years’ imprisonment.

Potential possible mitigating factors

Guilty pleas

[64]All defendants pleaded guilty.

14     R v Harder [2025] NZHC 1321.

15     R v Keefe, above n 8, R v Tregidga [2021] NZHC 3498 and R v Hona [2014] NZHC 12.

.

[65]              Guilty plea discount depends on a variety of considerations, including timing and strength of the prosecution case.16

[66]              Israel Lama was charged 2 June 2023. He pleaded guilty 7 May 2025.  Samuel Lama and Sefilino Lama were charged 2 June 2023.  Both pleaded guilty   21 May 2025. Mr Unasa was charged 9 June 2023. He pleaded guilty 21 May 2025. Mr Tuaiti was charged 4 August 2023. He pleaded guilty 7 May 2025. Mr Jerome was charged 16 June 2023. He pleaded guilty 7 May 2025.

[67]Trial was scheduled to begin 28 July 2025.

[68]              Some defendants seek discounts of 20 percent, noting related negotiations took time. On behalf of Mr Tuaiti, Mr Speed stressed this point, saying Mr Tuaiti was always going to plead guilty. Other defendants seek 15 percent.

[69]              The pleas spared X the ordeal of testifying at trial. They also saved the cost of a trial. However, none of the pleas could be described as prompt given their timing, particularly  given  the  number  of  court  hearings  before  they  were  entered.   Plea discussions are just that until a plea is entered: discussions. Mr Harder received a 20 percent reduction. He pleaded guilty 1 October 2024, approximately seven months earlier. The evidence against the defendants was particularly strong, given they had filmed some of their offending, and given Israel Lama’s postage of some of that footage to social media. I amplify the last aspect in the footnote below.17

16 Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135, [2011] 1 NZLR 607.

17 Police located Israel Lama’s phone 2 June 2023. It included the following footage:

•X naked, injured and bound in the chair. Israel Lama can he heard laughing and encouraging him to say “heads up” in reference to the Head Hunter gang.

•Israel Lama kneeling beside X, telling him that I’m motherfucking torturous nigga” and “you’re gonna wish you’re dead nigga”. Mr Tuaiti is seen beside Israel Lama.

•X is naked and bound on the ground nearby a large blood stain on the wood. The ground is wet indicating hot water has already been poured on him. Israel Lama is holding a kettle. He tells X to tell him the truth. X tells Israel Lama he is telling the truth. Mr Tuaiti can be seen in the background. X asks why he would lie. Israel Lama then pours hot water on X, who squirms out of the way. He screams as the water touches him and then Mr Tuaiti put his foot on his shoulder to keep him in place. Israel Lama then pours hot water directly onto X’s genital area. He squirms away and multiple males can be heard yahooing, yelling and laughing in the background. From the same kettle more water is then splashed onto X, but it appears to have been swapped out for cold water.

•While the naked, bound X is in the camping chair, Israel Lama manipulates X’s head to show off his burns. Samuel Lama reaches and tries to yank out X’s nose ring. However, Israel Lama stops him from doing this but before slapping X in the face. Both Lamas laugh.

•A naked X is lying belly down on the ground. Israel Lama whips him with a belt. Mr Tuaiti

[70]I, therefore, adopt 15 percent for all defendants’ guilty pleas.

Remorse

[71]              All  defendants  seek  a  discount  for remorse in  the order of  five percent.  A discount in this context typically requires something tangible; the idea is that actions speak louder than words.

[72]              Expressions of remorse are contained in various reports and in letters to me expressing that sentiment. I note too there were offers to engage in restorative justice, albeit unsurprisingly, X was not interested in that process.

[73]              I am not persuaded of genuine remorse warranting additional discount to that inherent to a guilty plea. I explain below.

[74]              There were many, many opportunities over the 19 or 20 hours of X’s detention for an act of compassion, however minor by a defendant: a glass of water, a quiet word of comfort, provision of a blanket. No defendant did anything of the sort. The contention Israel Lama would not have allowed this overlooks that he was not always immediately present with X in the 19 to 20 hour period.

[75]              Samuel Lama and Sefilino Lama declined to allow X to dress despite his request. They also made him eat with his hands to humiliate him.

[76]              The pre-sentence reports in relation to Sefilino Lama and Mr Tuaiti question the availability of their remorse. Israel Lama’s pre-sentence report contains no expression of remorse.

Youth

[77]Distressingly, as with X, all defendants are young.

stands over him as does Mr Unasa.

•Israel Lama is filming Mr Harder at Helensville. Mr Harder is standing over the naked X while holding a belt and a beer bottle. He smacks X in the face with the belt and Israel Lama laughs. In another video Mr Harder stands over X and taunts him with the belt, using it to almost stroke his face.

•Israel Lama beating the naked X with a belt whilst others in the background laugh.

[78]              Discounts for youth in this context are not uncommon, but not automatic either. Discounts are given when, for example, the offending is impulsive or consistent with a lack of maturity, or when a younger defendant is directed by an older defendant to commit an offence. Sometimes a youth discount recognises the prospect of rehabilitation, the mere fact of immaturity, or both. No ceiling exists in relation to youth discounts; everything depends on circumstance, on context. Offence- seriousness can constrain youth discounts, particularly when the offending does not bear the characteristics associated with youthful, impulsive misadventure. That is the position here.

[79]              Israel  Lama  was  21  years  old  when   he   committed   these   offences. The 10 percent discount I would otherwise afford I halved because Israel Lama was on bail for three other sets of offences when he committed those against X: possession of an offensive weapon; carrying an imitation firearm; injuring with intent to injure; and burglary. So, his discount is five percent.

[80]              Samuel Lama had just turned 20 but was already on bail for common assault. The resulting deduction is, therefore, five percent rather than 10 percent.

[81]              Sefilino Lama was only 17. As I said earlier, it is likely his actions reflect the influence of his  two  older  brothers.  I,  therefore,  afford  a  greater  deduction  of 15 percent.

[82]              Mr Unasa was 21 but on bail for injuring with intent to injure. The otherwise applicable 10 percent discount I reduce to five percent for this reason.

[83]              Mr Tuaiti was the oldest of the six at the age of 24. That age is on the cusp for a discount and the offending was especially serious. But in recognition of the possibility of rehabilitation, I afford five percent.

[84]              Mr Jerome was 21. His 10 percent deduction for youth is not offset by any offending on bail.

Personal circumstances

[85]              I received — and read — extensive reports in relation to the defendants, including pre-sentence reports, cultural reports, and other material, including correspondence from members of family.18 Put broadly, all defendants argue their backgrounds  contributed  in  some  way  to  the  commission  of  the   offending. The following montage attempts to capture the key elements.

[86]              The Lama brothers are from a large family. They all say their father strayed from being a disciplinarian into outright physical abuse. Normalisation of alcohol and gambling are also identified as features of a somewhat dysfunctional household.     So too disclosure of intimate offending within the family.

[87]              Mr Unasa appears to have had a structured and stable family life, albeit he says he was distant from his father and exposed to alcohol, drugs, substance abuse and gangs through his wider family.

[88]              Mr Tuaiti does not know his father but was close to a grandfather who was likely alcoholic. Mr Tuaiti said he turned to drugs and alcohol when his beloved grandfather died. Problems with drugs and alcohol are offered as mitigatory, albeit the fact of intoxication through drugs, alcohol, or both during the commission of an offence does not constitute a mitigating feature.19

[89]              Mr Jerome relies heavily on a letter from his mother referencing violence, misuse of alcohol and sexual abuse. These topics are, however, not greatly explored in the letter.

[90]              In short, all defendants offer, in one way or another, personal circumstances as mitigatory of the offending. I have tried to avoid legal recitation whenever possible, but it is important to capture what the Supreme Court has said on this subject:20

The relevance of an offender’s background does not in any way reduce the importance of acknowledging, through sentences, the harm caused by an

18     Including a letter from the father of the Lamas, who essentially says he is responsible for what occurred.

19     Sentencing Act, s 9(3).

20     Berkland v R [2022] NZSC 143, [2022] 1 NZLR 509 at [94] (footnotes omitted).

offender, and particularly the harm to victims. Indeed, provision is also made for the court to hear the perspectives of victims through victim impact statements. There are other sentencing purposes and principles such as deterrence, denunciation and community protection. Where offending is particularly serious these principles will usually be more powerfully engaged. Logically, there will come a point where background, even if it has contributed to the offending, can have no impact. But that will be a matter for careful consideration on the facts of the offence and the offender.

[91]Also relevant is what X says in his victim impact statement:

Your Honour, I want to be clear this isn’t coming from someone whose had it easy. I grew up in a tough household too. I know struggle.  I know hardship. I [have] lived in [South Auckland] my whole life. But never ever would I even think of doing something like this to another human being.

[92]The point is well made.

[93]              In relation to the Lama brothers, I accept familial normalisation of violence might conceivably have played a modest role in the offending. But that role, if any, would be modest only. We are not concerned here with spontaneous violence, with an argument degenerating to violence, or with, for example, two groups of young men encountering each other on a Friday night and resorting to violence. Rather, the violence we are concerned with lies in a different universe: torture. Offending of this nature shocks the community, for good reason. Denunciation, deterrence, and community protection are, therefore, pre-eminent sentencing imperatives. These constrain the available discount, which I confine to five percent in relation to the Lama brothers.

[94]              In relation to Mr Unasa, Mr Tuaiti and Mr Jerome, I am not persuaded the offending is genuinely mitigated by anything in their backgrounds, particularly given what I have said earlier.

Time on electronically monitored bail

[95]              Three defendants spent time on electronically monitored bail: Samuel Lama, Sefilino Lama, and Mr Tuaiti. The law requires time on electronically monitored bail

be considered at sentencing.21  Discounts, which  are typical, often range between   30 and 50 percent of the period on bail.

[96]              Samuel Lama has been on electronically monitored bail since 11 July 2023, including  approximately  nine  months  at  the  Grace  Foundation  in  Whanganui.   I received a letter from the Foundation.22 Its manager also spoke briefly to me today. He said Samuel Lama has used the time profitably and commended him for rehabilitative  progress,  including  demonstration  of  leadership  skills.  I  deduct  12 months in recognition of that progress, in other words, 50 percent. Mr Kilian argues I should give a discrete, additional 10 percent discount. I consider that would involve an element of double counting and given offence seriousness; I decline to do that.

[97]              Sefilino  Lama  has  also  been   on   electronically   monitored   bail   since 22 July 2023, and at the Grace Foundation throughout, in Auckland. Sefilino Lama is described by the Foundation as having undergone a “transformation”. His progress is also described as “extraordinary”. I deduct 12 months in recognition of that progress.

[98]              Mr Tuaiti was granted electronically monitored bail on 16 February 2024. He has been on that bail, without incident, until today. I deduct six months. This figure reflects the seriousness  of  Mr  Tuaiti’s  offending  and,  unlike  Samuel  and  Sefilino Lama, the absence of any formal documented rehabilitative progress in the period on electronically monitored bail.

Totality adjustment?

[99]              On 22 October 2024, Judge S Bonnar KC imposed terms of imprisonment on Israel Lama and Mr Unasa for unrelated offending, including offences of violence. Israel Lama received a three-year prison sentence; Mr Unasa, a term of two years and eight months’ imprisonment. These sentences endure.

21     Sentencing Act, s 9(2)(h).

22     The letter  is dated 31 August 2025, but that must be an error.   I assume the author meant       31 July 2025.

[100]          The law requires me to be mindful of totality in these circumstances, that is, to avoid a disproportionately severe sentence.23 One way to do so is to make these sentences concurrent, not cumulative. Another is to make a modest, three-month deduction to the sentences that I impose to ensure the sentence is not disproportionately severe.

[101]          For completeness, I note Mr Tuaiti was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment on 8 November 2023 for assault. That sentence has, of course, expired. No adjustment is needed for him.

Mr Tuaiti’s mother

[102]          Mr Tuaiti’s mother is very ill. Mr Speed argues this aspect should be the subject of a discrete deduction. He says the situation is akin to someone who has difficulties that make imprisonment more difficult. I see the issue as one for the prison authorities rather than any recognition today. Although the situation is unfortunate, it is not one involving any physical infirmity or mental condition on the part of a defendant that makes incarceration inherently more difficult.

Sentences

[103]This methodology produces these sentences:

(a)Israel Lama: nine years and six months’ imprisonment.

(b)Mr Unasa: eight years and six and a half months’ imprisonment.

(c)Mr Tuaiti: eight years and three and a half months’ imprisonment.

(d)Mr Jerome: eight years and three months’ imprisonment.

(e)Samuel Lama: three years and one and a half months’ imprisonment.

(f)Sefilino Lama: 19 months’ imprisonment.

23     Sentencing Act, s 85.

Sefilino Lama: home detention?

[104]          It is common ground imprisonment would ordinarily follow for the offence of kidnapping, which is the only offence in the mix given what I said earlier; again, because of Sefilino Lama’s age, I must disregard his violence. Ms Feyen emphasises Sefilino Lama’s youth and “extraordinary” rehabilitative progress as warranting home detention rather than imprisonment. I accept the submission and impose 12 months’ home detention. I decline to impose any shorter sentence because of the seriousness of the kidnapping in which Sefilino Lama was involved.

Samuel Lama

[105]Mr Kilian argues Samuel Lama should receive a sentence of home detention.

[106]          A sentence of home detention is available only when the sentence that would otherwise be imposed is one of two years’ imprisonment or less. Samuel Lama’s sentence is above that threshold by more than a year. His sentence is different to that of Sefilino Lama, in relation to whom I was essentially confined to the offence of kidnapping. Samuel Lama was a party to torture, in that he was a party to the use of hot water on bare skin, including X’s genitals, and in the repeated whipping of X who was naked, bound, and in a downstairs room of a gang pad or gang connected premises, in an already injured state from other forms of terrible abuse.

Minimum periods of imprisonment for Israel Lama, Mr Unasa, Mr Tuaiti and Mr Jerome?

[107]          The Crown seeks minimum periods of imprisonment of 50 percent in relation to Israel Lama, Mr Unasa, Mr Tuaiti and Mr Jerome.24 It emphasises the gravity of the offending and most obviously, the use of torture.

[108]          The defendants argue minimum periods are unwarranted. All emphasise their pleas of guilty, age, and length of the proposed sentences.

24     Sentencing Act, s 86.

[109]          As will be apparent, Israel Lama and Mr Unasa have criminal records for violence, albeit short. The same is true for Mr Tuaiti who, as observed, has a conviction for assault which attracted a term of imprisonment. Mr Jerome is a first offender.

[110]          Israel Lama is assessed as posing a high risk of re-offending. The same is true of Mr Unasa. His pre-sentence report says should he continue his associations, “then his risk of further violent offending is considered to be high to very high”. Mr Tuaiti is assessed “as being at high risk of harm to others” and to pose a “high risk of re-offending”. Mr Speed argues this could not be objectively correct given Mr Tuaiti’s confined (criminal) record, but this rather overlooks the seriousness of his immediate offending. Mr Jerome is assessed as posing a  high risk of harm  to others  given  “his impulsivity for violence compounded with his untreated substance abuse”. He is considered to have a “medium risk of further offending in the context of general and violent offending”.

[111]          It follows risk, hence community protection, favours minimum terms. Mitigating circumstances, including age, go some distance the other way. So too the courses the defendants have already done in prison. Mr Jerome is also a first offender, so there is an argument he should be distinguished from the others. But he did, of his own volition, take a hammer to X’s legs. That point introduces the next, which is that the offending is especially serious. Denunciation and deterrence, including general deterrence, assume evident importance. Those who torture others must be seen to be held accountable. I, therefore, impose minimum terms of 50 percent.

Discrete sentences

Israel Lama

[112]          I impose terms of imprisonment of nine years and six months on the kidnapping and wounding charges. I impose a minimum period of 50 percent on each charge. On all remaining charges, I impose terms of four years’ imprisonment. All sentences are concurrent among themselves and on the sentences Mr Lama is already serving.

Samuel Lama

[113]          On all offences, I impose a term of three years and one and a half months’ imprisonment. All sentences are concurrent among themselves.

Mr Unasa

[114]          I impose terms of eight years and six and a half months’ imprisonment on the kidnapping and wounding charges. I impose a minimum period of 50 percent on each charge. On all remaining charges, I impose terms of three and a half years’ imprisonment. All sentences are concurrent among themselves and on the sentences Mr Unasa is already serving.

Mr Tuaiti

[115]          I impose terms of eight years and three and a half months’ imprisonment on the kidnapping and wounding charges. I impose a minimum period of 50 percent on each charge. On all remaining charges, I impose terms of three and a half years’ imprisonment. All sentences are concurrent among themselves.

Mr Jerome

[116]          I impose terms of eight years and three months’ imprisonment on the kidnapping and wounding charges. I impose a minimum period of 50 percent on each charge. On all remaining charges, I impose terms of three and a half years’ imprisonment. All sentences are concurrent among themselves.

Sefilino Lama

[117]          On the charge of kidnapping, I impose a term of 12 months’ home detention on the conditions recommended in the pre-sentence report. On the remaining charges I can do no more than convict and discharge him. The law precludes any other penalty.

[118]          As will be evident, the difference in penalty as between Israel Lama and Sefilino Lama is striking. But, as I have sought to explain, this reflects profound

differences in (a) culpability, (b) in the charges in relation to each, and (c) what the law permits in relation to Sefilino Lama.

……………………………..

Downs J