Jury adjourns for night in case of Samoan chief accused of human trafficking, slavery

A Napier jury deliberating in the case of the Samoan chief accused of human trafficking and slavery has adjourned for the night but six women and five men will return at 10am tomorrow to resume deliberations. 

Joseph Auga Matamata is on trial at the High Court in Napier for 11 charges of human trafficking and 13 charges of dealing in slaves over a 25-year period from 1994.

The 65-year-old Samoan national, also known as Viliamu Samu, who lives in Hastings, was arrested in December 2018 after a two-year investigation by Immigration NZ and police.

It's alleged Matamata brought people from Samoa to New Zealand with the promise of a better life for their families by working and earning money in the horticulture industry.

However, once in New Zealand, Matamata did not pay them for the work completed, which often involved long hours for days on end, prosecutors contend.

Matamata's lawyer has told the jury the Crown evidence doesn’t add up.

Multiple witnesses for the Crown have alleged Matamata physically abused them if they did not obey his rules or tried to leave the property.

In closing, the defence’s case lawyer Roger Philip told the jury the allegations are a misunderstanding of Samoan culture and that the complainants' freedom of movement was not restricted.

He said the complainants were allowed to play rugby, eat meals with friends, visit girlfriends and attend church. 

He questioned whether if Matamata was an alleged "slave master", why he would let the alleged victims partake in those activities.

Mr Philip also questioned why the police and Immigration had not investigated Matamata in the past when complainants were arrested and deported to Samoa over the years.

He said there is conflicting evidence from the complainants and that no money was promised before they were brought to New Zealand.

Justice Helen Cull, who is presiding over the case, in the summary told the jurors to base their decision solely on the facts presented in the case and to ignore any prejudice or previous information they have heard outside of the court.