R v Joseph Auga Matamata

JurisdictionNew Zealand
JudgeMiller J
Judgment Date09 August 2021
Neutral Citation[2021] NZCA 372
Docket NumberCA458/2020
CourtCourt of Appeal
Between
The Queen
Appellant
and
Joseph Auga Matamata
Respondent
Between
Joseph Auga Matamata
Appellant
and
The Queen
Respondent

[2021] NZCA 372

Court:

Miller, Clifford and Collins JJ

CA458/2020

CA472/2020

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

Criminal — appeal against a conviction for trafficking in persons and dealing in slaves — appeal by the Solicitor-General appealed against the sentence of 11 years imprisonment — definition of slavery — ownership — control — possession — propensity evidence — Crimes Act 1961

Counsel:

N P Chisnall and L A Elborough for Mr Matamata

S K Barr and R K Thomson for the Crown

  • A Mr Matamata's appeal against conviction is dismissed.

  • B The Solicitor-General's appeal against sentence is allowed. Mr Matamata must serve a minimum period of imprisonment of five years.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Miller J)

Table of Contents

Narrative

[4]

The trial

[9]

The slavery offence

[13]

The trafficking offence

[15]

The summing-up and question trail

[18]

Slavery

[19]

Trafficking

[27]

Using a person as a slave

[30]

The Conventions

[34]

Section 98

[37]

Trafficking in people

[47]

Propensity evidence

[51]

The sentence appeal

[55]

The sentencing

[56]

The starting point

[66]

Minimum period of imprisonment

[82]

Disposition

[86]

1

Mr Matamata was convicted after trial on 13 charges of using a person as a slave 1 and 10 of human trafficking, 2 affecting 13 complainants and spanning the years 1994 to 2019. 3 He was sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment. 4

2

He now appeals his convictions, saying that the trial Judge misdirected the jury on the actus reus and mens rea of the slavery offence, on the requirement for a deceptive act in the trafficking offence, and on the use they might make of propensity evidence.

3

The Crown appeals the sentence, saying that it ought to have been 15–16 years' imprisonment and ought to have attracted a minimum period of imprisonment of 50 per cent having regard to the need for deterrence, denunciation and accountability.

Narrative
4

Mr Matamata, who is now aged 66, is a Samoan national who has lived in New Zealand for many years but maintains close connections with his village and extended family in Samoa. He holds the status of matai. In evidence he explained that he holds three such titles, giving him responsibility for looking after a number of families, which involves providing financial support, maintaining discipline and resolving disputes.

5

Mr Matamata and his wife supplied labour for orchard contracting businesses in Hawke's Bay. The work included pruning, thinning, and picking in orchards or market gardens. The complainants all worked for him in that employment and about his home. There were four groups of them, all drawn from Mr Matamata's community in Samoa:

  • (a) Group 1: TP and FP, a brother and sister aged 17 and 15, came to New Zealand in 1994 and left Mr Matamata's house in 1997 and 1995 respectively;

  • (b) Group 2: LM, AT, UT, PP and ST came to New Zealand in 2003, aged 18 to 44, and left between 2004 and 2005;

  • (c) Group 3: IP, FA and MT came to New Zealand in 2015 and 2016, aged 31 to 53. MT left after just over two months and the others left in 2017. A complaint in January 2017 triggered the police investigation into Mr Matamata's activities; and

  • (d) Group 4: LS, VM and TM came to New Zealand in 2016, aged 12 to 19 years, and were adopted by Mr Matamata. LS and VM left Mr Matamata's house in 2018 and TM left in 2019.

6

The Group 1 complainants were not the subject of trafficking charges because the offence did not exist in 1994. The others were all the subject of one trafficking and one slavery charge:

  • (a) The trafficking charge was brought under s 98D of the Crimes Act 1961. The Crown alleged that Mr Matamata arranged the entry of each complainant into New Zealand by deceiving them.

  • (b) The slavery charge was brought under s 98(1)(b) of the Crimes Act. The Crown alleged that Mr Matamata “used” each complainant “as a slave”.

7

Mr Matamata arranged flights and visas for the complainants. All but Group 4 arrived on three-month visitor visas that did not permit them to work. Group 4 arrived on resident visas.

8

The Crown case was that Mr Matamata brought the complainants to work in New Zealand on the false promise that the money they would earn would be theirs after they had repaid the costs of travel to New Zealand and an allowance for lodging with him. Once they were in New Zealand he put them to work. He enslaved them by retaining their net income, by restricting their freedom of movement, by restricting their communications, and by using actual or threatened violence for breaching his rules or standards.

The trial
9

The trial began on 10 February 2020 at Napier and took 35 days. The jury heard the evidence of 44 witnesses for the Crown. The witnesses fell into four groups: the complainants; people such as the complainants' parents and relatives who dealt with Mr Matamata and the arrangements made in Samoa; people in Hawke's Bay who witnessed relevant events or had dealings with the complainants and Mr Matamata's family; and police and other official witnesses.

10

The complainants and the other witnesses from Samoa deposed that Mr Matamata promised the complainants could work in New Zealand and remit money to their families. He paid their airfares and arranged visitor visas. The complainants deposed that on their arrival they were completely dependent on Mr Matamata. He fed and housed them but gave them no money and kept their passports, saying he needed those for visa purposes. He isolated them, telling them they must remain at his property when they were not working. The property was fenced and its gates sometimes locked. The complainants were not to communicate with others, even at church. Because of his matai status they were reluctant to voice their complaints. They were denied phones of their own; he destroyed one when he found out that the complainant had procured it. They were rarely able to call home, and when they did he would be present. Nor could they remit money, though he paid modest amounts to family in Samoa from time to time for events such as funerals. Most of them were overstayers, at risk of deportation; he called the police and had two of them deported when they fled his home and continued working in Hawke's Bay. When they did not obey his rules or do chores he would punish them, usually with violence or threats. Most of the complainants alleged he had assaulted them. There was evidence of injuries consistent with assaults; one had needed medical treatment for a gash suffered when Mr Matamata threw secateurs at him. Serious violence was meted out to a complainant when Mr Matamata found out that the owner of the contracting business had begun to pay some of the complainants part of their wages in cash. Eventually most of them managed to escape and make their way home to Samoa with the assistance of others.

11

Mr Matamata gave evidence and called family witnesses and the leader of his church (who deposed that he did not think the complainants were under instruction not to speak to others). The essence of the defence was a denial of all the factual allegations, beginning with the claim that he arranged for complainants to come to New Zealand. He assisted many of the complainants to come to New Zealand only at the request of their families. He was not responsible for understandings that people in Samoa may have reached among themselves. He was often asked to bring people to New Zealand but was reluctant to do so. He arranged travel for some so they could see New Zealand for themselves, and he adopted the last group to help them out as they were getting into trouble in Samoa. He denied bringing anyone over to work on a visitor's visa and denied deceiving anyone about money; he never claimed that he would provide the complainants with work. He kept the complainants' passports safe at their request. They helped out in return for board. He denied detaining anyone or using violence to control them. His house was fenced for security reasons. He often accompanied the complainants outside the home because they had poor English. He accounted for their injuries by saying the complainants had them when they arrived or the cause was accidental. He deposed that the complainants helped about the house but were not required to work in the orchards; they were unpaid volunteers to the extent they did so. Some of them could not have worked as they claimed because they were in New Zealand when there was no seasonal work to do. He called the police when two left his home and began working for an orchard contractor because he believed they had committed unrelated offences. Banking records were available for the last group of complainants; he explained that their wages went into his account, and later into accounts in their names that he controlled and used, because they were family. He often provided financial support for the complainants' families in Samoa.

12

The complainants' accounts were corroborated in many respects and they were also mutually supportive. It is plain from the notes of evidence that Mr Matamata struggled to explain the allegations away, and it is wholly unsurprising that the jury found them proved. He was found guilty on 23 out of the 24 charges. 5

The slavery offence
13

The appeal turns on the definition of the offences, so we begin with s 98:

98 Dealing in slaves

(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who, within or outside New Zealand,—

  • (a) sells, purchases, transfers, barters, lets, hires, or in any way...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Joseph Auga Matamata v R
    • New Zealand
    • Supreme Court
    • March 3, 2022
    ...of a person into New Zealand … by 1 or more acts of coercion against the person, 1 or more acts of deception of the 3 4 5 R v Matamata [2021] NZCA 372 (Miller, Clifford and Collins JJ) [CA judgment] at At [4]–[8]. By s 5 of the Crimes Amendment Act 2015. For brevity, we will refer to s 98D ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT