Category: Public Media

Source: Radio New Zealand

The man who murdered five people by lighting the Loafers Lodge blaze has been sentenced to life in prison, with no chance of release for at least 22 years.

Esarona David Lologa, 50, set the Wellington boarding house alight in May 2023.

He was sentenced in the High Court in Wellington on Friday, to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 22 years.

He will be detained as a special patient in a hospital, and will need to be assessed before he can be moved a prison.

Michael Wahrlich, Melvin Parun, Peter O’Sullivan, Kenneth Barnard and Liam Hockings died in the fire.

In September, a jury found Lologa guilty of five counts of murder, and guilty of one count of arson.

His defence argued he was insane when he lit the fire.

The Crown called around 100 witnesses over its four weeks of evidence.

They included Loafers Lodge residents who described their harrowing escapes from the blaze, firefighters who fought tears recounting their experiences, and crucially, five mental health professionals who believed Lologa was not insane when he lit the fire.

The experts said Lologa did know his actions were morally wrong.

They pointed to Lologa’s own comments to police and psychiatrists, including that he had “done nothing wrong”, as evidence he understood the difference between right and wrong.

During the trial psychiatrist Dr Krishna Pillai, testifying for the defence, believed the man was insane when he lit the fire, and was experiencing a serious psychotic relapse.

Pillai told the court the man’s hallucinations – hearing voices telling him to light the fire – rendered him incapable of knowing lighting the fire was morally wrong, which is a threshold required for an insanity defence.

Esarona Lologa – also known as Esa – was born in Wellington in 1975, but was raised by his grandmother and uncle in a small village near Apia, Samoa.

He was initially educated in Samoa but moved to Wellington when he was about 13, where he lived with his uncle. He attended high school in Lower Hutt.

As a young man, Lologa had a relationship with a woman almost 20 years his senior, who had a teenage son.

In 2009 Lologa was convicted of attempting to murder the son with a machete, after he believed his partner was cheating on him.

Lologa had 50 previous convictions – including the attempted murder and an attempted arson in 1996, after he broke into a butcher and tried to burn it down.

He had also been found guilty of common assault and fraud.

He first came to the attention of mental health services in 1999, when he was 24. He was hearing voices in his head that were swearing at him.

Lologa was diagnosed as having schizophrenia, and was first admitted to a mental health facility in 2000.

The court heard details about Lologa’s clinical history spanning more than two decades, including nine hospital admissions.

During adulthood, Lologa lived in Wellington and Auckland. He stayed in social housing and boarding houses, as well as his car and the street, psychiatrists told the court.

Lologa absconded from a mental health facility on 21 April, 2023, three weeks before the fires, and there was a warrant out for his arrest.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

The country’s highest court has found that governments must consider climate change when deciding whether to offer oil and gas blocks for tender.

The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal on Friday that former Energy and Resources Minister Megan Woods was required to take climate change into account when she granted on-shore exploration permits to two companies in 2021.

However, the court found that climate change is a mandatory consideration at the earlier stage of offering blocks for tender.

Climate change was “so obviously relevant” to a decision that could lead to the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels that it must be considered, the panel of five Supreme Court justices ruled.

“Climate change is a matter of pressing concern for New Zealand and its well-being both in the near and long term,” the justices wrote in their decision.

“Moreover, the Crown has entered into binding obligations on New Zealand’s behalf in connection with reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

“Petroleum extraction and consumption are major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in New Zealand and internationally.”

The Crown Minerals Act’s aim was to “promote” prospecting, exploration and mining “for the benefit of New Zealand”.

The court found that ‘benefit’ was “not simply a recognition of the benefits that flow from mining”.

“Climate change is therefore a mandatory relevant consideration … when deciding whether to offer petroleum exploration permits for tender,” the decision said.

“This is because climate change is so obviously relevant to a decision to commence a process which is intended, if successful, to progress through to extraction of petroleum.”

Student group first took case in 2021

The case against the Energy and Resources minister was taken all the way to the Supreme Court by a group of Victoria University law students.

Students for Climate Solutions, now called Climate Clinic Aotearoa, first took the case in 2021.

The group argued that when then-Energy Minister Megan Woods made her decision to grant the permits, she did not properly consider the impacts of climate change, despite advice from the Climate Change Commission that the government should avoid locking in new fossil fuel assets.

The students argued that climate change should be considered at the point when a minister is deciding whether to grant a permit.

Friday’s judgement dismissed the students’ case, but on the basis that once a tender process had already been completed, going on to refuse a permit would undermine the intent of offering a block for tender.

The proper place to consider climate change and other mandatory considerations was at the earlier stage to offer blocks for tender in the first place, the court ruled.

Friday’s judgement found that even though she was not required to consider climate change at the permitting stage, Woods had adequately done so anyway.

She had received detailed advice from officials and was aware of other relevant matters, including policy work on a National Energy Strategy and a broader climate change work programme.

Supreme Court decision at odds with earlier rulings

The High Court earlier found against the students’ case, ruling that while no one could doubt the importance of climate change issues, the purpose of the Crown Minerals Act was to promote mining for fossil fuels.

“Such activity may be at the expense of climate change, but that is what the Act seeks to advance,” Justice Francis Cooke found.

On that account, the Energy Minister had acted in line with the law, he said.

The Court of Appeal also dismissed the students’ appeal, with a panel of three judges finding that there was no requirement for the minister to consider climate change when making permitting decisions.

However, one of the three appeal judges, Justice Jillian Mallon, found that climate change was a ‘permissive’ consideration – in other words, that the minister could factor it into her decision if she chose to.

That was because the Climate Change Response Act, more widely known as the Zero Carbon Act, allows ministers and public agencies to take New Zealand’s emissions targets and budgets into account when carrying out their duties.

Justice Mallon said in her judgement: “Given the accepted climate emergency, and that the combustion of fossil fuels is the main cause of climate change, it would be odd if the Minister responsible for petroleum exploration was precluded from taking into account these key components of New Zealand’s response to climate change, when Parliament has said in the Climate Change Response Act that those exercising powers may do so.”

As an example, she said if the country was on course to exceed one of its emissions budgets, “it would be odd (and potentially contrary to the benefit of New Zealand) if the Minister was precluded from taking into account any published advice from the Climate Change Commission about this in determining whether to grant a permit in furtherance of the purpose of the Act to promote further exploration or prospecting of petroleum ‘for the benefit of NZ”.

At the time Woods granted the two permits, the Climate Change Commission had advised the government it was not on track to meet its emissions targets.

Current projections show New Zealand is on track to meet it emissions budgets for 2022-25 and 2026-2030, but not the budget for 2031-35.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

The government is proposing to amend alcohol legislation so restaurants with on-site retail spaces can sell take-home booze.

The amendment to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act would mean restaurants can apply for an off-licence, if they also sell takeaway food or non-alcoholic beverages prepared by the business.

The bill was originally a National Party member’s bill lodged by Hutt South MP Chris Bishop in 2018, and then transferred to Wairarapa MP Mike Butterick in 2023 once Bishop became a minister.

The bill was pulled from the ballot in April, but has now been picked up by Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee as government legislation.

McKee said restaurants were already trusted to supply alcohol through an on-licence, and the law change would mean they can apply for permission to sell it for off-site consumption as well.

“Right now, restaurants that prepare and sell food products like sauces, pastries or desserts for consumption off site are effectively barred from selling customers a bottle of wine to take home,” she said.

“These rigid rules have created absurd barriers to responsible businesses providing a unique experience their customers want.”

McKee said the current law was “nonsensical.” She gave the example of La Bella Italia in Petone, which has both a restaurant and an on-site shop under the same roof.

She said the restaurant had had to jump through “all sorts of hoops” to sell wine for customers to take home with their meal.

“When the rules can’t adapt, they block good ideas and kill the spirit and ambition of the people behind them.”

Restaurants would continue to be required to hold an on-licence to sell alcohol for consumption on the premises.

Alcohol legislation flows through Parliament

This would not be the only legislation liberalising alcohol sales to be considered by Parliament this term.

In August, McKee announced she would loosen the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act to make it harder for people to block liquor licences, and easier for ministers to declare one-off special trading hours for venues screening major sporting or cultural events.

Labour’s Kieran McAnulty has a member’s bill to allow businesses that are already allowed to open on Anzac Day morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day to sell alcohol.

That bill is up for second reading, and is set to be debated at the first ‘member’s day’ session next year.

In October, the Justice Committee recommended the bill be passed, but proposed retaining restrictions for off-licence premises.

A bill from ACT’s Cameron Luxton to repeal alcohol restrictions on Good Friday and Easter Sunday was voted down at first reading in 2024.

National MP Stuart Smith’s bill allowing winery cellar doors to charge visitors for samples and add off-licence categories for wineries holding an on-licence passed successfully through the House in 2024.

Parliament treats alcohol legislation as a conscience matter, meaning MPs vote according to their personal view instead of as a party bloc.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand