Albert v The King - [2025] NZCA 554

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA287/2025
[2025] NZCA 554

BETWEEN	ERNEST HARLEM ALBERT Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	9 October 2025
Court:	Whata, Venning and Osborne JJ
Counsel:	C S Taylor for Appellant M R L Davie for Respondent
Judgment:	23 October 2025 at 11:00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Whata J)

Mr Albert was convicted of two charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. He was sentenced to nine years and five months’ imprisonment.[1] Mr Albert appeals his convictions.

Facts

[1]R v Albert [2025] NZDC 9071.

The undisputed facts of the offending can be stated briefly. Mr Albert travelled with C to C’s address. A 76-year-old neighbour, B, dropped in. Sometime later, B went outside to a car while C went down the hallway. Mr Albert grabbed a kitchen knife and stabbed C multiple times. He then went outside. B was, by then, in the car. Mr Albert reached in through the passenger door and grabbed B. B resisted. Mr Albert stabbed him in the chest and took the car. Sometime later Mr Albert drove to the police station.

The trial

The Crown case

The Crown case was simple. C saw Mr Albert in Kawakawa after a tangi. He offered to give Mr Albert a lift and they decided to go to C’s home. They had a few beers. B arrived. They both noticed Mr Albert doing what C described as “sign language”. Mr Albert wanted to smoke some meth. C said he could not do so in his house. They agreed to drop Mr Albert at a nearby house to enable him to smoke his pipe. B went out to the car, C down the hall to get a crate. Unprovoked, Mr Albert stabbed C in the back multiple times. C then escaped. Mr Albert went to the car where B was waiting and stabbed him. Mr Albert then took the car.

The defence case

Mr Albert initially defended both charges based on self-defence. His counsel opened to the jury claiming that Mr Albert stabbed the victims to get away from harm, that he barely knew them, that he had been taken to an isolated rural location and that they had threatened him. Just prior to closing however, the trial Judge withdrew self‑defence from consideration by the jury in relation to the stabbing of B. No formal decision was given, but there is a reference to this in the sentencing remarks. The Judge observed that there was no credible narrative to support a finding that Mr Albert was acting in self-defence.[2] As a result, Mr Albert pleaded guilty to the charge relating to B (the B charge).
[2]At [12].
Mr Albert maintained self-defence to the charge relating to C on the basis that Mr Albert genuinely believed his life was under threat. On Mr Albert’s case:
(a)He got into C’s car after the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Albert v The King

Details

AGLC: Albert v The King [2025] NZCA 554
Case: [2025] NZCA 554
Decision Date: 23 October 2025 at 11:00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Albert v The King, Ernest Harlem Albert appealed against his convictions for two charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The case was heard by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, comprising Whata, Venning, and Osborne JJ. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions and sentences were upheld.

The legal issues central to this appeal were whether the trial judge erred in excluding certain evidence and in withdrawing the consideration of self-defence in relation to one of the charges. The first issue pertained to the judge's refusal to permit cross-examination of a witness regarding a photograph and a prior conviction for assault. The second issue was whether the judge was correct in withdrawing the consideration of self-defence from the jury concerning one of the charges.

The court found no merit in Albert's arguments. Regarding the excluded evidence, the court held that the prior conviction was not probative of a propensity to violence relevant to the current charges, and the photograph did not advance Albert's defence. As for the self-defence argument, the court concluded that there was no credible narrative supporting a self-defence claim, particularly since the victim was elderly and defenceless at the time of the stabbing, presenting no actual threat. The court reiterated that self-defence must be based on a reasonable belief and that the force used must be proportionate to the perceived threat. Here, the court found Albert's belief to be fanciful and the force used to be excessive.

The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions and sentences were upheld, as the court found no miscarriage of justice that would warrant overturning the trial outcomes.

Orders