Judge labels guard’s tackle vigilantism

A Queenstown security guard’s forceful tackling of a man allegedly responsible for an assault outside a nearby bar was a "vigilante action", a judge says.

Peterpaul Mose Pupualii (27) was on duty at a Camp St fast-food outlet about 1am on October 16 when he was told by colleagues to look out for the man and restrain him.

After identifying the man, the defendant took off his jacket, ran at the man and tackled him.

The victim was caught by surprise and flung backwards, hitting his head on the road.

After he was observed staggering on CCTV, St John was called and the victim was taken to Lakes District Hospital with a haematoma, cut and swelling to the back of his head.

He spent the night in hospital and was later diagnosed with serious concussion.

Pupualii was sentenced in the Queenstown District Court yesterday after admitting a charge of injuring with reckless disregard.

He made an unsuccessful application for a discharge without conviction at a hearing on Monday, at which Judge John Brandts-Giesen said he was concerned the collective efforts of CBD security staff to "get" the victim amounted to vigilantism.

Prosecuting Sergeant Ian Collin agreed, saying the defendant’s actions were indicative of a "macho approach" among some CBD doormen.

The defendant had told police after his arrest he was "just looking after his brothers".

Police had granted the victim diversion for his earlier assault on the doorman, which had been a single punch to the shoulder, Sgt Collin said.

Judge Brandts-Giesen said he accepted a conviction could affect the defendant’s ability to find employment as a firefighter, and potentially impact overseas travel.

However, those consequences were not out of all proportion to the seriousness of the offending, and he could not grant a discharge.

At yesterday’s sentencing, counsel Alice Milne said the offending was out of character for the defendant and his remorse was genuine.

"In his words, he will never let it happen again."

Judge Brandts-Giesen said he had taken account of the defendant’s clean record and guilty plea, and considered a conviction went "some way" towards punishment.

However, he ordered the defendant to carry out 50 hours’ community work and pay the victim $300 reparation.

 

Advertisement