In the carpark of a small-town New Zealand supermarket on an otherwise ordinary Saturday, a cocaine deal collapsed into violence, leaving one man dead and two others to answer for it before the law. The trial now unfolding at Wellington High Court asks not only who fired the fatal shot, but how responsibility is shared among those who set events in motion. It is a case that sits at the intersection of commerce, desperation, and consequence — a reminder that the law must parse degrees of culpability even when the outcome is singular and irreversible.
Two men deny murder in Featherston supermarket shooting over failed drug deal
One person fatally shot during the incident in a public supermarket carpark.
He's in a bad way. Hurry up, man, where are you?
Mark
So the Crown's theory is that this was a robbery disguised as a deal—that Sue and his associate came to steal the cocaine rather than buy it?
Mimi
That's what the evidence suggests. They blocked the Holden's exit with their vehicles, scattered nails behind the wheels, and came armed. The Crown says they threatened the men inside and took the drugs. It looks premeditated.
Luke
But we only have the Crown's version so far. The defence hasn't presented yet. We don't know what Taukei'aho and Sue will say about who had the gun first or what the actual sequence of events was.
Mark
The video shows four shots clearly. Does that help establish who fired them?
Mimi
The video captures the shots, but it doesn't necessarily show who fired them or from where. That's where forensics and witness testimony come in—and where the defence might challenge the Crown's narrative.
Luke
Right. And the jury has to decide whether those four shots came from the Holden or the ute, or both. That distinction matters enormously for the charges.
Mark
Why are the two men charged differently if they were both in the same car?
Mimi
Because the law recognizes different levels of involvement. Taukei'aho is alleged to have fired the fatal shot. Sue is alleged to have been party to the murder—present, involved in the planning or the act itself, but not necessarily the shooter.
Luke
Which means the jury could find Taukei'aho guilty of murder and Sue guilty of something less, or vice versa. Justice Isac was explicit about that. They're not a package deal.
Mark
What about the emergency call? Does that help the Crown's case?
Mimi
It establishes the timeline and the fact that Sue was shot and died. It's powerful evidence of what happened, but it doesn't tell us much about who started the violence or why.
Luke
The call also shows Sue's associate was in the ute, which means there were witnesses. But we don't know yet what those witnesses will say or whether they'll testify. The defence case is still to come.
O Pulso
- A four-thousand-dollar cocaine deal arranged over encrypted messages became a fatal ambush when one party arrived with a firearm, scattered nails behind the sellers' wheels, and seized the drugs.
- Gunfire erupted in a carpark full of Saturday shoppers, and a man named Rodney Sue was struck in the back by a bullet fired from the vehicle he had just robbed.
- A desperate, frantic call to emergency services played out as Sue's associate drove toward an ambulance that arrived too late — Sue died before reaching hospital.
- Two men, Pelikani Taukei'aho and Tauave Sue, were stopped by police shortly after and now face murder charges that may yield different verdicts depending on what the jury concludes about each man's role.
- Over five weeks, the court must determine where the line falls between pulling the trigger and standing beside the person who does.
In the carpark of a small-town New Zealand supermarket on an otherwise ordinary Saturday, a cocaine deal collapsed into violence, leaving one man dead and two others to answer for it before the law. The trial now unfolding at Wellington High Court asks not only who fired the fatal shot, but how responsibility is shared among those who set events in motion. It is a case that sits at the intersection of commerce, desperation, and consequence — a reminder that the law must parse degrees of culpability even when the outcome is singular and irreversible.
A grey Holden was parked at Fresh Choice supermarket in Featherston on a Saturday afternoon in March 2025, its occupants waiting to complete a cocaine deal worth four thousand dollars apiece. What they did not anticipate was that the other party had arrived with a firearm and a plan to take the drugs by force.
According to the Crown, a red ute and a red Mercedes pulled into the carpark minutes before the shooting. A man approached the Holden while an associate scattered nails behind its wheels to prevent escape. The drugs were taken from the back seat at gunpoint. What followed was an exchange of gunfire among weekend shoppers. The Crown alleges one of the Holden's occupants stepped out and fired four shots at the departing ute. One bullet entered the rear of the vehicle and struck the driver, Rodney Sue, in the back.
Video footage shown to the jury captured the four shots before the ute sped away. Inside, Sue's associate called emergency services in a state of rising panic, urging the ambulance to hurry as his friend lost consciousness. Sue died before help could reach him.
Police intercepted the grey Holden heading toward Upper Hutt. Its occupants, Pelikani Taukei'aho and Tauave Sue, now stand trial for murder at Wellington High Court — Taukei'aho as the alleged shooter, Sue as an alleged party to the act. Justice Andru Isac has reminded the jury that the two charges need not produce the same verdict. Over five weeks, the court will work to untangle what the law has always found difficult: the difference between the hand that fires and the will that stands behind it.
A grey Holden sat in the carpark of Fresh Choice supermarket in Featherston on a Saturday afternoon in March last year. Inside were two men waiting to complete what they believed would be a straightforward transaction—a cocaine deal worth four thousand dollars each, with the promise of opening new supply lines. What happened next left one man dead and two others in the dock at Wellington High Court, both denying murder.
The Crown's case, laid out by prosecutor Daniel Becker, traces the deal's origins to January of the previous year, when the two defendants began communicating over Signal about the sale. The exchange was originally planned for Upper Hutt but was moved to the supermarket in Featherston. On March 22, minutes before the shooting, a red SsangYong ute and a red Mercedes-Benz pulled into the carpark. A man emerged from the ute and moved toward the Holden, while an associate scattered nails behind its wheels—a deliberate obstruction. According to the Crown, as this man and his associate approached the Holden, they threatened its occupants with a firearm and took the drugs from the back seat.
What followed was gunfire in a busy carpark full of shoppers. The Crown alleges that the man in the ute fired first, prompting one of the Holden's occupants to exit and fire four shots at the red vehicle. One of those shots entered the rear of the ute and struck the driver in the back. He was Rodney Sue, and he was killed.
Video footage played to the jury captured four distinct shots before the red ute accelerated away from the scene. Inside, Sue's associate made a desperate call to emergency services. His friend had been shot, he told the operator, and was unconscious. "He's in a bad way." As they drove toward a meeting point with an ambulance in Carterton, the associate grew increasingly frantic, demanding to know the ambulance's location. "Hurry up, man, where are you?" he asked the operator. Sue died before reaching hospital.
Meanwhile, police stopped the grey Holden as it headed toward Upper Hutt. Inside were Pelikani Taukei'aho and Tauave Sue. Both now face murder charges, though Justice Andru Isac made clear to the jury that the charges do not guarantee identical verdicts. Taukei'aho is charged as the principal offender—the one who fired the fatal shots. Sue is charged as a party to the murder, meaning he is alleged to have been involved in the planning or commission of the act, though not necessarily the shooter.
Their lawyers have asked the jury to keep an open mind until the defence presents its case. The trial is scheduled for five weeks, and the jury will have the option of reaching different conclusions about each man's culpability. What began as a drug deal in a supermarket carpark on an ordinary Saturday afternoon has become a test of how the law distinguishes between the person who pulls the trigger and the person who stands beside them.
Citações Notáveis
He's in a bad way.— Sue's associate, in emergency call after the shooting
While both were charged with murder, it didn't mean they were both guilty or not guilty of murder and the jury may reach different verdicts for each.— Justice Andru Isac, addressing the jury
Quer a matéria completa?
Leia o original em NZ Herald ↗