[1] Mr Quentin Bishop was charged with assault with intent to injure;1 assault person in a family relationship;2 and two charges of breaching a protection order.3 He was convicted by a Judge-alone trial only on the charges of assaulting with intent to injure, assaulting a person in a family relationship and one breach of protection order. He was sentenced to nine months’ supervision. He appeals both his convictions and sentence. Mr Bishop says the Judge erred in finding the charges proved, on the basis that the evidence given at the trial by the complainant was insufficient to find the

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 193 — maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 194A — maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.
3      Family Violence Act 2018, ss 90(b) and 112(1)(a) — maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.

BISHOP v POLICE [2022] NZHC 591 [29 March 2022]

charges proved. Alternatively, Mr Bishop submits the Judge should have granted him a discharge without conviction.4

Background

[2] The appellant was in a relationship with the complainant. At around 12.30pm on 28 November 2020, the two were driving together, the appellant driving the complainant’s vehicle. An argument broke out and the appellant pulled over to the side of the road. With one hand on the steering wheel, it is said that he used the other to twist the complainant’s arm, in what was described as a “Chinese burn”. It is alleged the appellant then grabbed the complainant at the top of the knee in what was described as a “Charlie horse”. There were no lasting bruises or marks for either incident.

[3] The two returned to the appellant’s house. It was alleged the appellant took the complainant’s phone and car keys. The complainant waited in the car before going into the appellant’s house to locate her keys and phone. The complainant located the keys in the appellant’s bedroom. There was another physical incident. The complainant used a plastic drink bottle to try to hit the appellant. The appellant then used his hand around the complainant’s neck, pushed her to the wall and bit her shoulder. Although there was no broken skin, bruising later developed and marks could faintly be seen.

[4] Following these events, the complainant applied for and was granted a temporary protection order, which was in place at the time of two incidents giving rise to breach of protection order charges.

[5] On 17 December 2020, the complainant was finishing work at a supermarket. The complainant became panicked because she had seen the appellant’s vehicle. The complainant had spent a lot of time in that vehicle and knew it well. Although she could not see the registration plate, she felt certain…

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 Bishop v Police

Details

AGLC: Bishop v Police [2022] NZHC 591
Case: [2022] NZHC 591
Decision Date: 29 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Quentin Bishop appeals his convictions for assault and breach of a protection order, as well as the refusal to grant him a discharge without conviction. The appeal was heard by Grice J in the High Court at Napier. The appellant submits that the trial Judge erred in finding the complainant's evidence credible, that the evidence was insufficient to prove the charges, and that the consequences of conviction would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending. The respondent opposes the appeal. The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The court found there was no error in the Judge's acceptance of the complainant's evidence. The conviction for breach of protection order was quashed as there was no evidence of contact with the complainant as prohibited by the order. The appeal against the refusal to grant a discharge without conviction was also dismissed. The court was not satisfied that there was a real and appreciable risk that a conviction would result in consequences beyond those normally experienced on a conviction of this sort nor that in the event I was wrong about that that the consequences of a conviction would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending in this case.

Orders