Judge Removes Victim’s Sister from Court Over Impact Statement

A woman whose brother was murdered expressed feeling re-victimized after being removed from the courtroom during a sentencing hearing. Paula Beilby was stopped by Justice Mary Peters while reading a victim impact statement related to the death of her brother, Mitchell Te Kani, who was killed in a violent incident involving members of the Mongrel Mob in Tauranga in May 2022. The incident sparked significant emotional responses and raised concerns about courtroom conduct regarding victims’ rights.

During the hearing on October 16, 2023, Beilby sought to read a pre-approved statement, but Justice Peters interrupted her when she suggested that the defendant, Hamiora William Jack-Kino, received preferential treatment by having a separate trial from his co-defendants. “I don’t care what you’re reading; it’s totally unacceptable for you to say that,” the judge responded, instructing her to take a seat at the back of the court. Beilby later described the incident as frustrating and indicative of a justice system that has failed her family.

Beilby’s brother, Mitchell Te Kani, was fatally struck with a crowbar during a brawl at their family home. Nine individuals were previously tried and sentenced in connection to his murder, while Jack-Kino faced a separate trial due to concerns about his fitness to stand trial. This decision has continued to resonate within the family, as they grapple with the implications of these legal proceedings.

In her statement, Beilby aimed to convey the full impact of her brother’s death on her family, arguing that the trial’s structure had further victimized them. She believed it was essential to communicate the emotional toll of the events. “I felt the whole justice system … and the way it’s worked, it’s just further victimized our whole family,” she stated. Justice Peters clarified the guidelines regarding victim impact statements, emphasizing that certain parts may be redacted for legal reasons.

When Beilby attempted to address the conditions surrounding Jack-Kino’s trial, Justice Peters deemed her remarks inappropriate, stating, “That’s actually not correct,” and reiterated that such comments were offensive. The courtroom atmosphere intensified, leading to Beilby being asked to leave after another victim read their statement.

After being escorted out, Beilby reflected on the hearing and her family’s ordeal. She expressed disappointment that her father, at 74 years old, had to recount traumatic memories from the fateful night. “To have my 74-year-old father sit and recall everything of those horrific events … it’s just not fair,” she added.

Jack-Kino was ultimately sentenced to nine years imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of four years. Beilby found the sentence insufficient, stating, “It’s laughable,” and emphasized her feelings of being let down by the legal system. She described the overall experience in court as reinforcing her sense of victimization, noting that she expected such treatment from the justice system.

The Office of the Chief Justice confirmed that the responsibility for presenting victim impact statements lies with the prosecutor. While redactions are not explicitly addressed in the Victims’ Rights Act, they are often employed to prevent abuse directed at offenders or to exclude unrelated matters. A spokesperson noted that such courtroom dynamics can become tense and emotional, stating, “The presiding judge is responsible for managing proceedings in a way that is orderly and safe.”

Concerns about courtroom procedures were echoed by Ruth Money, the chief victims adviser to the Government. She expressed that it is troubling for victims to be asked to leave court, stating, “Not only does it go against open and transparent justice, it’s not how anyone, let alone victim survivors, should be treated.” Money highlighted a lack of consistency across the country regarding acceptable content in victim impact statements, suggesting that improvements to the Victims’ Rights Act are necessary.

As the family continues to seek justice and healing, the incident serves as a reminder of the complexities surrounding victim rights in legal proceedings. Beilby’s experience has illuminated significant gaps in how the justice system interacts with and supports victims and their families.