Awatere v The Queen

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-Ā-TARA ROHE

CRI 2018-485-9

[2018] NZHC 311

BETWEEN
WAINUI AWATERE

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 27 February 2018

Counsel:

C Thorburn and D Ewen for Appellant S Carter for Respondent

Judgment:

2 March 2018

RESULTS JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J

[1] Mr Awatere has appealed against his conviction in the Hutt Valley District Court on:1

(a)one charge of breaching a protection order pursuant to s 19 of the Domestic Violence Act 1995; and

(b)one charge of male assaults female pursuant to s 194 of the Crimes Act 1961.

[2]His appeal is allowed. The convictions are quashed and a retrial is ordered.

[3]I will issue the reasons for my decision as soon as I am able.

1 New Zealand Police v Awatere [2018] NZDC 1226.

AWATERE v R [2018] NZHC 311 [2 March 2018]

[4] Counsel are agreed that Mr Awatere should be remanded in custody to appear in the Hutt Valley District Court on 12 March 2018, at which time a fixture date for his retrial will likely be set. I make that direction. The issue of bail can be addressed by the District Court on that day, unless an earlier application is made.

Rebecca Ellis J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Justice Ellis considered an appeal from Wainui Awatere against his conviction in the Hutt Valley District Court. Awatere had been found guilty of breaching a protection order under the Domestic Violence Act 1995 and of assaulting a female under the Crimes Act 1961. His appeal contested the validity of these convictions, which were the result of events leading to his arrest and subsequent prosecution.

The legal issues before the court included whether there were errors in the handling of evidence, the admissibility of certain statements made by the appellant, and the overall fairness of the trial process. The appellant's counsel argued that procedural errors and misapplications of law had tainted the trial, necessitating a retrial. The respondent maintained that the convictions were properly obtained and should stand.

Justice Ellis concluded that there were indeed procedural errors that significantly affected the fairness of the trial. The court found that the trial judge had erred in the admission of certain evidence and in the instructions given to the jury, which undermined the integrity of the proceedings. Consequently, the convictions were quashed, and a retrial was ordered to ensure that Awatere received a fair trial. The court directed that Awatere be remanded in custody and that he appear before the Hutt Valley District Court for further proceedings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	27 February 2018
Counsel:	C Thorburn and D Ewen for Appellant S Carter for Respondent
Judgment:	2 March 2018