Beatty v Police - [2016] NZHC 190

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-404-225 [2016] NZHC 190

BETWEEN
TONY BEATTY

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 4 February 2016

Counsel:

M L Wotherspoon for Appellant
M J Hammer for Respondent

Judgment:

17 February 2016

JUDGMENT OF DAVISON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 17 February 2016 at 5:00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel: M L Wotherspoon (Auckland) for Appellant
Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Respondent

BEATTY v POLICE [2016] NZHC 190 [17 February 2016]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Mr Beatty, was found guilty on one charge of assault;1 one charge of threatening to injure with intent to intimidate;2 and one charge of possession of an offensive weapon3 before Judge Cunningham in the District Court at Auckland.

[2] He now appeals against his convictions or, in the alternative, applies for discharges without conviction.

Background

[3] Mr Beatty and his family live in a rented property in Hillsborough.

[4] On 12 June 2015, the owner of the neighbouring property arranged the survey of an area in front of the two houses.4 The result was that a piece of land that the Beatty family customarily used appeared from the survey pegs to belong to the neighbouring property.

[5] On 13 June 2015, a contractor, Mr O’Brien, and his staff arrived at the address on behalf of the owner of the neighbouring property to erect a fence along the new boundary line in front of the two houses. The fence to be built would result in a loss of useable space at the rented property at which the Beatty family lived.

[6] It is not in dispute that the Beatty family was not informed about the plans to construct a new fence.

[7] It is agreed that when Mr O’Brien and his staff arrived, Mrs Beatty, first, came outside the house. The allegation against Mr Beatty is that soon afterward, he too came out of the house and became engaged in a heated discussion with
Mr O’Brien, during which he struck Mr O’Brien in the face using his fist. It is clear

1      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 9.
2      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 21(1)(A).
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 202A(4)(b).
4      I note that Mr O’Brien was also present when the surveyors were at attendance to mark the site
for the fence accordingly.

from the evidence that a physical altercation between the two men followed, and injuries were sustained by both.

[8] It is alleged that Mr Beatty then retreated and returned inside the house, and shortly thereafter returned with a wooden baseball bat in his hand. Although Mr Beatty did not use the bat to attack or apply force to Mr O’Brien, he is said to have chased Mr O’Brien with the bat whilst making threats to kill him.

District Court decision

[9] Before setting out the reasons for her decision, the Judge noted the focus of the case was on the allegations against Mr Beatty in…

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 Beatty v Police

Details

AGLC: Beatty v Police [2016] NZHC 190
Case: [2016] NZHC 190
Decision Date: 17 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Beatty v Police, Tony Beatty appealed against his convictions on three charges: assault, possession of an offensive weapon, and threatening to injure. The appeal was heard by Davison J in the High Court of New Zealand. The appellant argued that the District Court judge had erred in her assessment of the evidence, particularly in relation to the video footage of the incident, the credibility of witnesses, and the application of certain defences. The respondent submitted that the judge's findings were correct and that there was no miscarriage of justice. The court found that the District Court judge's findings on the assault charge were correct and that the appellant had thrown the first punch deliberately. The court also found that the appellant's possession of the offensive weapon was not justifiable and that the threat to injure charge was proven. The court dismissed the appeal against conviction and upheld the refusal to grant discharges without conviction. The court noted that the injuries sustained by the parties required police attention.

Orders