Bowman v Police - [2016] NZHC 1300

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2016-485-000030 [2016] NZHC 1300

BETWEEN
NGAWINI ANNE BOWMAN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 14 June 2016

Appearances:

C J Tennet for Appellant
S W P Woods for Crown

Judgment:

15 June 2016

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] The appellant, Ngawini Bowman, appeals both her conviction and sentence on the following charges:

(a) wilful damage under s 11 of the Summary Offences Act 1981; and

(b) dangerous driving under s 35(1)(b) of the Land Transport Act 1998.

[2] Ms Bowman was convicted following a Judge-alone trial before Judge Tuohy.1 She was sentenced to 100 hours’ community work on both charges. In addition, she was required to pay $70 in reparation on the wilful damage charge and, on the dangerous driving charge, she was disqualified from driving for six months. She was also ordered to pay $160 in witness costs.

[3] The charges arose out of an altercation when the victim was hanging two large bedding sheets over her first floor balcony to dry. Ms Bowman, who was

1 Police v Bowman [2016] NZDC 6788.

visiting the occupant in the bottom flat, yelled abuse to the victim. When the victim came out onto her deck and attempted to pull her sheets back up over the deck railing, Ms Bowman pulled them from below and cut them with a knife.

[4] When the victim went out to the roadside to call the police, Ms Bowman got into her car which was parked on the opposite side of the road, revved the engine repeatedly and then accelerated towards to the victim at speed before coming to an abrupt stop, no more than one metre from where the victim was standing. This action caused the victim to step backwards in fear of being struck by the vehicle. Ms Bowman is then alleged to have laughed at the victim while she revved the engine again and yelled further abuse at her before driving away.

Grounds of appeal

[5] The notice of appeal specifies the grounds of appeal as follows:

(a) as to the conviction of dangerous driving the Judge erred in fact and in law in his assessment of the evidence and to such an extent that a miscarriage of justice has occurred;

(b)as to the conviction (dangerous driving only) the learned Judge erred in his assessment of the evidence (including in drawing inferences) to such an extent that a miscarriage of justice has occurred;

(c) further and additionally as to sentence on both, the learned Judge erred in fact and law in imposing the amount of witness expenses.

[6] The third ground of appeal relating to the correct calculation of witness costs was resolved when the appellant’s counsel accepted it only related to witness costs for that day’s hearing and did not include costs for any previous Court date.

Conviction appeal

[7] The appeal of the conviction for dangerous driving is governed by s 232 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. Subsection (2) provides…

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 Bowman v Police

Details

AGLC: Bowman v Police [2016] NZHC 1300
Case: [2016] NZHC 1300
Decision Date: 15 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ngawini Bowman appeals both her conviction and sentence for wilful damage and dangerous driving. The appeal arises from an altercation where Ms Bowman cut sheets hanging from a neighbour's balcony and subsequently drove her car aggressively towards the neighbour. The District Court found Ms Bowman guilty and sentenced her to 100 hours' community work and disqualified her from driving for six months. The appeal focuses on the sufficiency of the evidence for the dangerous driving conviction, the correctness of the sentence, and the amount of witness costs.

The appeal against conviction hinges on whether the District Court Judge erred in his assessment of the evidence for the dangerous driving charge. Ms Bowman argues that the Judge erred in drawing inferences and in finding the driving was dangerous. The court rejected these arguments, finding that the Judge relied on direct evidence from the victim and a neighbour, corroborated by the neighbour's testimony. The court held that the Judge's findings on the facts of the incident were unimpeachable and that the driving was indeed dangerous. The appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Regarding the sentence, Ms Bowman argued that 100 hours' community work was manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentence was justified by the aggravating factors of the offence and the appellant's extensive criminal history. The court held that the sentence was within the range of reasonable sentences that could have been imposed and dismissed the appeal against sentence.

The court also resolved a minor issue regarding the calculation of witness costs, clarifying that it pertained only to the costs for that day's hearing. No substantive changes were made to the original sentence or conviction.

Orders