Beattie v Police - [2013] NZHC 1781

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2012-488-62 [2013] NZHC 1781

BETWEEN ROBERT DOUGLAS BEATTIE Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 14 June 2013 and by subsequent memoranda

Appearances:

R Bowden for Appellant
M B Smith for Respondent

Judgment:

16 July 2013

JUDGMENT OF LANG J [on appeal against conviction]

This judgment was delivered by me on 16 July 2013 at 3 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

ROBERT DOUGLAS BEATTIE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2013] NZHC 1781 [16 July 2013]

[1] Mr Beattie faced two charges laid in the District Court of assaulting a female. Following a defended hearing that spanned two days, Judge McDonald delivered an oral decision on 24 August 2012 in which he found Mr Beattie guilty on both charges.1 On 24 August 2012, the Judge sentenced Mr Beattie to 150 hours community work, and nine months supervision.2

[2] Mr Beattie appeals to this Court against conviction. He maintains that the police permitted vital evidence to be destroyed, and that this breached his right to a fair trial under s 25(a) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. He therefore asks this Court to quash the convictions on both charges.

The prosecution case

[3] The prosecution case rested for the most part on the evidence of the two complainants, Ms M and Ms P. On 24 November 2011, Ms M and her 16 year old daughter placed an order at a takeaway shop in the main street of Kawakawa. They then sat at a table outside the shop waiting for their order to be filled. Ms M said that whilst they were sitting there, she noticed Mr Beattie walking towards her along the street. She said that he looked at them “in a sleazy way”, and that she told him to keep walking. This annoyed Mr Beattie, and he turned around and came back. She said that when he returned, he rubbed his hand along her daughter’s shoulder and arm and said “If I want to do this to your daughter, what are you going to do about it?” Ms M said that she then “lost the plot” and told him to “f off”. Her daughter also responded angrily to Mr Beattie’s actions.

[4] Ms M said that Mr Beattie then began walking backwards and forwards along the street to and from the area where Ms M and her daughter were sitting. This prompted angry verbal outbursts from Ms M and her daughter. At some stage he also followed her when she went into the takeaway shop. When Mr Beattie returned to their table on one of these occasions, Ms M said that he struck her a blow on the shoulder and chest area with his forearm. He then ran across the road. The blow to Ms M’s shoulder and chest area formed the basis of the first charge that Mr Beattie
faced.

1 New Zealand Police v Beattie DC Kaikohe CRI-2011-027-002413, 24 August…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Beattie v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NZHC 1781
Decision Date: 16 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Robert Douglas Beattie, appealed against his conviction on two charges of assault, maintaining that the police permitted vital evidence to be destroyed, which breached his right to a fair trial under section 25(a) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The court was required to decide whether the unavailability of the CCTV footage rendered the trial unfair as it deprived the appellant of the opportunity to use it to prove his innocence. The leading authority on the issue is R v Harmer, which sets out the principles that the court must consider when determining whether the unavailability of evidence would have been of real benefit to the defence, and whether it is more probable than not that the lost evidence would have been of real assistance to the defence in the circumstances of the particular case. The court found that the constable did not act in bad faith, but it was unfortunate that he failed to download the footage within the one-month period in which it was available. However, the court concluded that any further devotion of scarce judicial resources to this matter would be a disproportionate response to the overall significance of the case. The appeal against conviction was allowed, and the convictions were set aside and the sentences imposed on Mr Beattie were quashed.

Orders