A jury, deliberating for more than a day, has found a woman had murderous intent when she ploughed into her partner on a Hamilton street, leaving him for dead.
Zhane Te Awhina Faiers had earlier admitted causing Ropati Shortland’s death by manslaughter, and defended the murder charge as she did not intend to injure him, let alone kill him.
The jury in the High Court at Hamilton returned with their majority - or 11 to 1 - verdict at 2pm today, after beginning deliberations just after 11am yesterday after a week-long trial.
Members of Shortland’s family let out a collective sigh of relief as the verdict was read, however, tensions rose after Faiers was led down to the cells and the two families exchanged words.
Faiers was convicted by Justice Anne Hinton and remanded in custody for sentencing on September 5.
The day of Shortland’s death was the result of a tumultuous day for the pair.
Shortland had rung her at 3am on the morning of May 2 last year to pick him up from his other partner’s house with whom he’d argued.
They drove off together and also argued, and Shortland was later arrested for an assault on the other woman, who was also the mother of his child.
The Crown alleged Faiers had been involved in the theft of Shortland’s Ford Ranger ute which was left on Wall St, Nawton, before it was driven to a house on nearby Breckons Ave.
After being released from court, Shortland together with his older brother, Isaiah, went to pick up the ute so he could return to his father’s house in Paihia, Northland.
After knocking on the door of a house, only to be told the ute wasn’t there, Shortland was crossing the road when Faiers drove at him, travelling between 40km/h and 50km/h.
Stunned, Shortland jumped, landing on the windscreen before being flipped onto the roof.
He tried holding onto the doors for a short distance before falling off as Faiers continued driving around a slight bend.
He suffered critical head injuries and died just under three weeks later in Waikato Hospital.
Summing up the case for the jury on Monday morning, Justice Anne Hinton said they had to decide whether Faiers intended to kill Shortland.
If they remained unsure, then their verdict should be manslaughter.
However, in finding a murder verdict, they had to be sure she either intended to kill him or cause him bodily injury that she knew at that time was likely to cause his death and she consciously ran the risk that he could die.
The judge also clarified the issue of braking, noting that had Faiers braked Shortland would have fallen off the front of the car, not the rear.
However, there was no suggestion from the Crown that would have been a better outcome for him.
They were also able to consider her personal background and her age - 24 at the time - as a brain at that age was “less likely to consider the cause of their actions”.
‘Completely avoidable’
In closing submissions, Crown prosecutor Jacinda Hamilton said Shortland’s death was a tragic situation because it was “completely avoidable” and irrevocably changed the lives of his whānau forever.
“It didn’t need to happen. Mr Shortland died and Ms Faiers is here because of a choice she made. One action she took. One that was deliberate. One that has consequences.”
Faiers’ evidence at trial was that she never meant to hurt Shortland and didn’t realise that by driving into him, he could die.
“She didn’t know ... that a car hitting a pedestrian could kill them,” Hamilton told the jury today.
“She thought it might hurt them but she had no appreciation a person could die from their injuries after being hit by a car.
“I suggest she’s no fool, but she’s trying to fool you.”
Hamilton reminded them the only part they had to focus on in determining whether she was guilty of murder was when Faiers “slammed” into her former partner at a speed of between 40-50km/h.
“It’s obvious, isn’t it? A vehicle is a large object made of steel. It’s big and powerful,” she said, unlike a human with fragile bones.
“There’s always going to be a likelihood of death.”
The couple had been in a relationship off and on for a number of years. However, Shortland was also still in a relationship with the mother of his 8-year-old child, and stayed with her the night before he died.
“I suggest it’s not easy to be part of a triangle,” Hamilton said.
“It’s a recipe for hurt and pain. Where there’s hurt and pain in a relationship, there’s also hostility and anger.”
Hamilton said Faiers was driving up and down Breckons Ave that evening “like a maniac, like a woman possessed” and after hitting Shortland, turned around and drove toward him again.
“Ms Faiers says her actions were not deliberate. The Crown says her actions at the time were very deliberate.”
‘She wasn’t angry, just upset’
Defence counsel Mark Sturm agreed the case was a tragedy not only for the Shortland whānau, but also for Faiers and her whānau.
He told the jury finding his client guilty of murder would not be “safe”.
“Not in every case where a person’s actions kill another person is it murder.
“If the act of killing occurred without this murderous intent but still with a culpable aspect ... then the crime committed will be manslaughter.”
At no point did his client know her actions would kill Shortland, but she did accept she did wrong, he said.
Sturm submitted the Crown was trying to make Faiers out to be angry that evening, something he said they needed to do to make out she had murderous intent.
“She wasn’t angry. She was just upset.”
He said it wasn’t so simple to say that by driving at a pedestrian, life would be in jeopardy.
“It’s not as open and shut as the Crown suggests.”
Whatever happened, there would be no winners.
“Everybody is worse off, everyone loses, no matter what your verdicts are.”
Belinda Feek has been a reporter for 19 years, and at the Herald for eight years before joining the Open Justice team in 2021.
Take your Radio, Podcasts and Music with you
