Bond v Police - [2024] NZHC 3226

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2024-488-000033

[2024] NZHC 3226

BETWEEN
DANIEL MICHAEL BOND

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 21 October 2024

Appearances:

A Tupuola for Appellant (by VMR)

J Johnson-Aufa’i for Respondent (by VMR)

Judgment:

1 November 2024

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

[Appeal against conviction and sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 1 November 2024 at 11.30 am

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors: Marsden Woods Inskip Smith, Whangārei Counsel: A Tupuola, Barrister, Kerikeri

BOND v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 3226 [1 November 2024]

Introduction

[1]Daniel Bond faced the following charges in the District Court at Whangārei:

(a)intentionally damaging a body camera, the property of Whangārei District Council;

(b)fighting in a public place;

(c)assaulting a police constable x2;

(d)resisting a police constable;

(e)failing to supply particulars; and

(f)failing to supply fingerprints.

[2] Following a defended Judge-alone trial in the District Court at Whangārei, Judge P R Rzepecky issued a judgment on 8 April 2024 in relation to the charges.1 The Judge dismissed the charge of intentionally damaging the body camera, the property of the Whangārei District Council, under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (CPA) and found Mr Bond not guilty on the charge of fighting in a public place. However, Judge Rzepecky convicted Mr Bond on the five remaining charges relating to his interaction with the Police. Subsequently, the Judge sentenced Mr Bond to six months’ supervision and 140 hours community work.2

Appeal grounds

[3] Mr Bond appeals against the conviction and sentence. Initially, Mr Bond raised three points in support of the appeal:

1 New Zealand Police v Bond [2024] NZDC 5364.
2 New Zealand Police v Bond [2024] NZDC 8503.

(a)First, the Judge could not have found the Police witnesses credible considering the contradictions between their written and oral evidence at trial in comparison to the CCTV footage.

(b)Next, his previous lawyer failed to call an eyewitness for the defence. This witness was available and could be seen in the footage.

(c)Finally, the trial was part heard over three dates so that a miscarriage of justice has occurred.

Preliminary matters

[4] Prior to the hearing of the appeal, Ms Tupuola filed a memorandum confirming that Mr Bond abandoned the proposed ground based on a challenge to trial counsel’s competency and the failure to call the defence witness.

[5] Ms Tupuola did not advance any submissions based on the third ground. She was correct not to pursue it. There is no force in it. The hearing was adjourned from time to time as there was insufficient Court hearing time to complete the proceedings on the day allocated. Section 167(1) of the CPA provides that:

Any proceeding may from time to time be adjourned by a judicial officer to a time and place then appointed.

As the trial was resumed before the same trial Judge and was completed within seven months, there is no miscarriage of justice by reason of the…

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 Bond v Police

Details

AGLC: Bond v Police [2024] NZHC 3226
Case: [2024] NZHC 3226
Decision Date: 1 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Daniel Michael Bond appeals against both his conviction and sentence following a trial in the District Court at Whangārei. The appellant was charged with intentionally damaging a body camera, fighting in a public place, assaulting a police constable twice, resisting a police constable, and failing to supply particulars and fingerprints. Following a Judge-alone trial, the Judge dismissed two charges, but convicted the appellant on the remaining five charges and sentenced him to six months’ supervision and 140 hours of community work. The appeal focuses on the evidential sufficiency and the Judge’s assessment of the evidence, particularly his reliance on the credibility and reliability of the Police witnesses given the inconsistencies in that evidence. The Court finds that the Judge properly considered all the evidence and gave proper and sufficient reasons for rejecting the appellant’s evidence and for preferring to accept the oral evidence of the key prosecution witnesses on the important points at issue. The appeal against convictions and sentence is dismissed.

Orders