Memorial to Tanya Burr, 1981-2002
Aspects of Serious Youth Crime in New Zealand in September 2002
(Part Three)
Pizza Delivery Man murder - 2001
Michael Choy (40) was going about his contract business on the evening of 12 September 2001, delivering pizzas to a home in Chantel Place, Papakura, Auckland, on behalf of Pizza Hut, when he became the victim of six kids aged between 17 and 12 years. After parking up the driveway he was supposed to be delivering the pizzas to, some of these kids approached him and while they attracted his attention, another from the group hit him over the head with a baseball bat.
It was in fact these kids who had phoned Pizza Hut. They had given a false address and had then lain in wait to ambush whoever showed up with the pizzas. The previous week a woman from KFC had almost become their victim. However the one charged with using the baseball bat had refused to hit a woman. She had escaped safely.
The kids took the pizzas and his money, and left him lying on the ground suffering very serious head injuries. He was able to get to a nearby house, but the people inside didn't realise what was wrong. While they were ringing the police to report this (rather than risk opening the door to some unknown potential attacker), Choy had begun trying to get to his father's house about 800 metres away.
The police duly found his car parked up the long dark driveway to the house he was supposed to deliver the pizzas to (but the householders had not ordered any pizzas), and at 4am they contacted the missing Choy's father. He was found unconscious on his father's doorstep then. However, he died in hospital that night (13 September 2001).
Several days later, six young people had been remanded in custody for the murder. They included a 12-year-old boy, a 14-year-old boy, two boys aged 15, one boy aged 16, and a 17-year-old woman. This began what might be one of New Zealand's more well-known murder cases. Three other young people also found themselves caught up in the case on conspiracy and robbery charges.
The youngest child, Bailey Junior Kurariki, aged 12 years and four months at the time of the killing, had become New Zealand's youngest killer. The previous youngest person had apparently been aged 13 years and six months old at the time of a 1948 offence.
The Depositions Hearing was held in February 2002, with the trial beginning on 22 July 2002. On 24 August 2002, two of the aforementioned six were found guilty of murder and the other four of manslaughter. This was the day before Tanya set off on her Contiki bus trip around Europe. It also marked the point where the image of the tiny seemingly angelic-looking Kurariki struggling to see over the top of the wall of the dock, hit the media. New Zealanders have seen this picture a great many times since - and it still shocks.
Sentencing was set down to begin on 13 September 2002. So as Tanya slept off her jetlag here in Palmerston North throughout the morning, and in due course stuck her holiday photos into her new photo album during the afternoon, the saga of the Choy murder was being played out in an Auckland courtroom. The media was again completely focused on the sentencing and the sight of 13-year-old Kurariki again peering out over the wall of the dock.
The next day (Saturday, 14 September 2002), as Tanya met with friends and relatives at Dannevirke, before driving home to Rotorua, NZ Herald readers were learning that the Choy family had described the little killers as "primates" and "scumbags". Meanwhile one of the many Defence lawyers involved pointed out that "they are not inherently bad kids", as he/she somewhat optimistically pleaded that they be given light sentences.
On Monday, 16 September 2002 - the day Tanya's body was found - the six received the following sentences:
1. Bailey Junior Kurariki (13) - 7 years in prison for manslaughter.
2. Alexander Tokorua Peihopa (16) - life in prison for murder, 5 years for aggravated robbery, 3 years for attempted robbery and 2½ years for theft.
3. Whatarangi Rawiri (17) - life for murder, 6 years for aggravated robbery and 4 for attempted aggravated robbery.
4. Phillip Kaukasi (17) - 12 years for manslaughter, 7 for aggravated robbery and 4 for attempted aggravated robbery.
5. Riki Rapira (16) - 9 years for manslaughter, 6 for aaggravated robbery.
6. Joe Kaukasi (15) - 8½ years for manslaughter and 6 yyears for aggravated robbery.
All sentences were to be served concurrently, and those imprisoned for life must serve ten years before they can apply for parole.
Issues deriving from this case involved the enormous amount of publicity it attracted. Much of this surrounded the very young age of Bailey Kurariki, the dyfunctional family and educational backgrounds of these children (especially anything remotely relating to Kurariki), and the manner in which the killing was done.
As a result, in March 2002 Rita Croskery, mother of Michael Choy, began a campaign to seek harsher penalties for violent crime. She wanted a royal commission of inquiry held to find out why criminals are getting younger, and began her action with a public meeting at Papakura High School in south Auckland. Over 500 people attended.
At the meeting, Mrs Croskery called for tougher sentences and zero tolerance of crime and for parents to be accountable for the actions of their children.
The meeting's chairman, retired judge Trevor Maxwell, successfully proposed a resolution of concern at an explosive increase in serious offending by young people and the inadequacy of the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act to address serious social problems.The meeting also overwhelmingly supported a call for a royal commission of inquiry into the adequacy of the act and to recommend the best ways to address the problem of violent crimes by young people.
The following day, news that a Youth Offending Strategy Plan would be announced in May, pre-empted the calls for the Government to hold a royal commission of inquiry into violent youth offending. This plan aimed to look at ways of reducing youth crime in the wake of a 55 per cent increase in offending by 10-16 year olds in the 1990s. It was also intended to develop and build on a set of initiatives to get a co-ordinated and effective response to youth offending.
On 10 July 2002, twelve days before the Choy trial was to begin, some 900 people marched through central Auckland in a remembrance rally for the victims of violent crime timed to coincide with the pending General Election. Many marchers, who were led by a pipe band, carried handmade crosses, some naming victims. Others recorded the number of people violently killed in the past 50 years. Several people on the roadside accepted the offer of a cross and joined the marchers. The rally organisers, the Sensible Sentencing Trust, said only two homicides were recorded in 1952. Fifty years later, the victims of murder or manslaughter for the years 1992 to 2001 totalled 1204.
The Choy case also experienced (or was the reason for) the preoccupation with endless name suppression that we were to experience soon after.
On 4 July 2002, several weeks before their trial, the five youngest of the Choy killers were granted name suppression until any conviction. Media photos were not allowed and only minimal television coverage would be allowed after evidence in the trial was completed. Justice Fisher said televising the case would lead to heightened stress for the accused, which could interfere with their ability to follow the trial and give proper instructions to lawyers. "Of greater moment is the question of stress on the youth accused, and hence his or her ability to play a meaningful part in influencing the conduct of his or her own defence."
A week later, the NZ Herald reported that media watchers feared that this High Court ruling would set a precedent for young people before adult courts. "It is certainly a dramatic curtailment of the public's right to know and of press freedoms," said William Akel, who appeared for Television New Zealand at last week's hearing. Auckland University law lecturer Scott Optican said the ruling was not a good day for the press - but it was no worse than any other suppression decision made by a judge on a discretionary basis.
"What we are dealing with is the operation of a systemic problem of discretionary name suppression in lots of cases that very frequently are not reviewed by the higher courts; not taken on aggressively by the prosecution." Mr Optican said if people could walk into court and hear all the details of a trial, including the names of the accused, they ought to be able to read about it in the media. If there were restrictions, he said, they should only be by act of Parliament.
The trial duly proceeded with the name suppression in place - in order to protect the killers from 'stress'. Name suppression for alleged offenders under 17 normally ceases once they reach the District or High Court because the law considers the crimes to be serious enough to warrant publication of names if they have moved out of the Youth Court's jurisdiction. Of course, in Wharekura's case, the name suppression remained for another three months after he turned 17. And this would have remained even longer if his lawyer had got his way.
Other noteworthy difficulties with the Choy trial included the judge feeling the need to go to the trouble of ensuring that the jury members for the six-week trial, understood English!
Thereafter came the conviction and the inevitable postmortems and editorials - especially in relation to Kurariki. Kurrariki began to see himself as something other than merely a criminal. The NZ Herald recorded on 30 August 2002 that after seeing his face on the front page of New Zealand newspapers, he had concluded that he was a celebrity. He was being held at the Kingslea Residential Centre in Christchurch where the attention was described as having affected Kurariki in a "disturbing" way.
Kingslea's manager said "He's been on the front page as New Zealand's youngest killer and now he thinks that he's made it, that he's a big star" and that his high profile after committing a violent crime, was sending a terrible message to other youngsters.
"Kids want his autograph. They see him on the front page and think that the way to do it is to go out and kill someone."Perhaps Wharekura was one such kid?
If he was, perhaps he also got an autograph from Kurariki when he himself reached Kingslea just over two week later?
Certainly both will have been at Kingslea when two All Blacks visited to inspire the inmates - and anger many other people in the process, when the matter reached the media in November 2002.
Another incidental curiosity is that this murder involved a pizza delivery person working for Pizza Hut in south Auckland - while Wharekura's girlfriend in Rotorua worked for Pizza Hut there. It was to her Reporoa home that he took Tanya's car straight after killing her, and it was this girl who finally told the police Wharekura had stabbed Tanya to death - some twenty hours after he admitted this to her.
Given these similarities, combined with the murder of another Auckland pizza worker, Marcus Doig on 8 May 2002, it seems (a) fairly likely Wharekura will have heard of these two murders, and (b) that working in the pizza production and supply industry was evidently a 'good' way to meet murderers!
In their decision, the appeal judges said they admired the way trial judge Justice Fisher had initially conducted what they described as an "anxious case" in the High Court.
"The youth and number of the accused placed especial burdens on him. His rulings and directions to the jury were thorough, careful, and helpful," they said. "He accurately organised the large volume of material before the court at trial and at the sentencing hearing. Such attention to the task has greatly assisted us on the appeal."
Other webpages worth reading on this topic:
1. Teens held in adult case (8 June 2002) Describes the pressure on youth justice facilities created by the "unprecedented number of teenagers are in Child, Youth and Family custody awaiting murder trials.
2. Matt
Robson: Early prevention of criminality more effective than cure
(16
September 2002). An article by a former Minister of Corrections
3. Justice campaigners in it for the longer term (16 November 2002) Describes the activities of the Sensible Sentencing Trust - especially in relation to its activities in 2002.
