Filipo case judge was ‘correct’
Jail time for Losi Filipo ‘‘just seems frankly absurd’’, the defence lawyer for the Wellington rugby player has argued.
Filipo, 18, is at the centre of a police appeal after a judge discharged him without conviction on four violence charges.
Justice David Collins reserved his decision in the High Court at Wellington yesterday as police challenged the District Court decision.
The police case focused on how he stomped on the head of one of his victims, with counsel for the police arguing that the sentencing judge, Bruce Davidson, ‘‘glossed over’’ the scale of the violence.
The Crown is seeking a starting point of 3 to 31⁄ years in jail for Filipo’s offending against his four victims.
But Noel Sainsbury, for Filipo, said Judge Davidson made a ‘‘considered, correct and compassionate decision’’ to discharge him.
He also said Wellington Rugby’s initial support of Filipo was responsible – as the aim in supporting a young man in trouble was surely to guarantee there would be no ‘‘runaway train’’ repeat of the incident.
‘‘They are to be commended for that support that they have put around him, rather than just walking away because it might be embarrassing. They have done the right thing.
‘‘What we have is a man from a disadvantaged background . . . who was lucky people saw his potential and gave him a chance,’’ Sainsbury told Justice Collins.
Judge Davidson had seen Filipo’s ‘‘dire prospects growing up in a gang area in Waitangirua [a suburb of Porirua]’’, he said.
Details of the assault in the early hours of October 11, 2015, and of Filipo’s discharge, caused an outcry when they emerged on September 26.
Filipo’s Wellington Lions rugby contract was ended by mutual agreement in the aftermath.
Sainsbury said Judge Davidson had seen that the gravity of the assaults were mitigated by Filipo’s offer to pay reparation and engage in restorative justice, as well as his guilty plea.
The judge also took into account his youth, showing the courts were ‘‘finally starting to perhaps get into the 21st century with our approach to things’’.
Earlier in the appeal hearing, Sally Carter, for police, said the Crown challenge was based on, first, that ‘‘the judge erred in properly determining the gravity of the offence’’, and second, that he gave too much emphasis to the consequences of the conviction.
She argued the sentencing judge ‘‘glossed over quite how the incident started’’. In discharging Filipo without conviction, Judge Davidson had called it ‘‘seemingly unprovoked’’ – the Crown said it was definitely unprovoked, Carter argued.
Filipo and his brother crossed the road, yelling at one the victims, saying they wanted to fight. This was clear in the police summary of facts, Carter said.
However, he had provided an affidavit claiming he did not have much recollection of the incident and that he became physically involved when his brother started fighting with some people, adding that he was hit in the mouth and retaliated.
These claims were ‘‘wholly at odds’’ with the Crown’s case, Carter said.
If Filipo had an issue with any points in the summary of facts to which he pleaded guilty, the facts should have been disputed and resolved before it got to a plea or sentencing, she said.
However, Sainsbury said a disputed facts hearing would have hurt Filipo’s chances: ‘‘The difficulty with that is that it tends to undo the credits for remorse and an early guilty plea [by] by putting the victims through that process.’’
She also noted the judge had taken into account that Filipo’s rugby career would likely require him to travel overseas but argued there was no strong evidence of a risk his potential for playing overseas would be affected by a conviction. - Fairfax NZ