Legal Research
Cases
Baker v The King

Baker v The King

Case [2024] NZHC 3842 9 December 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-404-621

[2024] NZHC 3842

BETWEEN
DANIEL WILLIAM BAKER

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 9 December 2024

Appearances:

A Spika for Appellant

C Purdon for Respondent

Judgment:

9 December 2024

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF WILKINSON-SMITH J

Solicitors:
Public Defence Service, Auckland Meredith Connell, Auckland

BAKER v R [2024] NZHC 3842 [9 December 2024]

Introduction

[1] Following a Judge-alone trial on 23 July 2024, Judge M-E Sharp issued a decision finding Mr Baker guilty of one charge of endangering transport.1 The Judge‑alone trial took place over two days on 26 and 27 June 2024. The charge arose out of Mr Baker allegedly shining a high-power laser into the cockpit of a DHL cargo 767 aircraft (the 767) that was airborne over the Titirangi area at approximately 7,000 feet.

[2] Mr Baker appeals his conviction and submits that the Judge erred in finding that he reacted with reckless disregard for the safety or property of others resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

[3] Mr Baker contends that he was found guilty on the basis that he should have perceived the risk when the law requires him to have actually perceived it. In other words, the appellant says that the Judge applied an objective rather than a subjective test.

[4] The respondent opposes the appeal. It is submitted that the Judge did not err in concluding that Mr Baker acted with reckless disregard for the safety of persons or property and that her Honour was entitled to draw inferences from the evidence adduced by the Crown that the appellant must have perceived a risk to aircraft when he shone the laser beam into the sky.

Background

[5] On Sunday 29 July 2022 at approximately 3 am, a DHL courier freight plane carrying cargo with two crew members on board was descending towards Auckland from Sydney. The pilot observed the cockpit of the aircraft illuminated by a bright green light emitted from a laser pointer. The light entered the left side of the cockpit for one to two seconds causing a distraction while the crew prepared the aircraft for arrival.

1 New Zealand Police v Baker [2024] NZDC 17136.

[6] The appellant was in possession of a laser pointer at his home address in Point Chevalier. His defence was that he was waving the laser around and the beam accidently struck the aircraft. The aircraft was somewhere between four and ten, although probably closer to ten, kilometres away at the time. The appellant says that the crew members avoided looking directly at the beam during the critical flight phase and the plane landed without issue.

[7] The appellant was located a short time later by the police Eagle helicopter at his home address in Point Chevalier using the laser pointer and directing it toward the Eagle helicopter. Upon arrest, he was in possession of methamphetamine and cannabis.

The District Court decision

[8] The District Court Judge set…

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 Baker v The King

Details

AGLC: Baker v The King [2024] NZHC 3842
Case: [2024] NZHC 3842
Decision Date: 9 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Daniel William Baker appeals his conviction for endangering transport by shining a high-power laser into the cockpit of a DHL cargo 767 aircraft while it was airborne over the Titirangi area at approximately 7,000 feet. The District Court found Baker guilty of the charge, and he now challenges the conviction on the grounds that the Judge erred in finding that he acted with reckless disregard for the safety or property of others, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The respondent opposes the appeal, asserting that the Judge did not err in concluding that Baker acted with reckless disregard.

The legal issues the court had to decide were whether the Judge erred in the assessment of the evidence and if a miscarriage of justice occurred. The court examined whether Baker recognised the real possibility of danger to persons or property and whether his actions were unreasonable, as required by the test for recklessness. The court noted that the test for recklessness is subjective, and it was open to the Judge to infer that Baker recognised the inherent danger of pointing a high-power laser into the sky at night. The court found that the Judge was entitled to draw this inference based on the evidence, including the general knowledge about the dangers of lasers and Baker’s actions that night, which showed a pattern of pointing lasers into the sky.

The court concluded that there was no error in the Judge's approach and that the findings were supported by the evidence. The court found that the Judge did not incorrectly apply an objective test but rather considered both general facts about lasers and facts specific to Baker. The court further found that the inherent danger of pointing a high-power laser into the sky at night meant that Baker must have recognised the risk, and his actions were unreasonable. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction stands.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal is dismissed, and Baker's conviction for endangering transport is upheld.

Orders