Carpenter v The Queen - [2014] NZHC 892

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-485-14 [2014] NZHC 892

BETWEEN
LIAM DAVID CARPENTER

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: 29 April 2014

Counsel:

F Kelly and K Preston for Appellant
S A H Bishop for Respondent

Judgment:

2 May 2014

JUDGMENT OF GODDARD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 2 May 2014

at 12.45 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Public Defence Service for Appellant
Crown Solicitor, Wellington

CARPENTER v R [2014] NZHC 892 [2 May 2014]

Introduction

[1] Mr Carpenter was found guilty of possession of a knife in a public place without reasonable excuse1 by Judge Tompkins on 4 March 2014. He was fined
$200 plus court costs of $130 and an order made for destruction of the knife. Mr Carpenter now appeals against his conviction.

Background

[2] Mr Carpenter was pulled over by police on an unrelated matter when driving his car on 2 July 2013 at around 1.45 pm. He was found to have a folding pocket knife in his pocket attached to his pants with a lanyard.

[3] The defence case was that Mr Carpenter, who is a possum trapper, had earlier in the morning cleared his possum traps, using the knife to skin the possums. He had used the knife again later, after returning home to prepare possum skins. Mr Carpenter said he had not turned his mind to the knife still being on his person when he went to collect his son from school. However, plans changed and he returned home to have lunch by himself. It was after lunch, while on his way to the local swimming pool to meet his son for a swimming lesson, when he was stopped by police and the knife discovered on his person.

Legislation

[4] Section 13 A of the Summary Offences Act 1981 provides:

13A Possession of knives

(1) Every person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $2,000 who, in any public place, without reasonable excuse, has any knife in his or her possession.

(2) On convicting any person of an offence against subsection (1), the court may order that the knife be forfeited to the Crown.

District Court decision

[5] It was not in dispute that Mr Carpenter had a knife on him when stopped by Police in a public place or that he had been carrying it about in public places earlier. The sole issue for the hearing was whether he had a reasonable excuse for doing so.

[6] At the hearing, a police officer, Constable Boggs, gave evidence that Mr Carpenter had previously been warned about carrying the same knife in public and warned that he should not carry it unless going to work or hunting. Judge Tompkins relied on this evidence in concluding that Mr Carpenter’s claim of
forgetfulness did not constitute a reasonable excuse.2 The Judge recorded as follows:

Ms Kelly submits that Mr Carpenter had simply…

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 Carpenter v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Carpenter v The Queen [2014] NZHC 892
Case: [2014] NZHC 892
Decision Date: 2 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Carpenter v The Queen involved the appellant, Mr Carpenter, appealing against his conviction for possession of a knife in a public place without a reasonable excuse. The District Court found Mr Carpenter guilty and fined him, along with ordering the destruction of the knife. The appeal was heard on 29 April 2014, with the judgment delivered on 2 May 2014 by Goddard J. The primary issues addressed in the appeal were whether the judge had correctly assessed the burden of proof and the admissibility of evidence regarding a previous warning about carrying a knife in public.

The court determined that the judge had indeed erred in placing the burden of proof on the appellant to demonstrate a reasonable excuse on the balance of probabilities, rather than requiring the Crown to disprove the excuse beyond reasonable doubt. However, the court found that this error did not affect the outcome of the case. The court further considered the admissibility of evidence concerning a previous warning given to Mr Carpenter about carrying a knife in public, and concluded that this evidence was relevant and admissible as it bore on the reasonableness of Mr Carpenter's claim of forgetfulness. The evidence showed a propensity to carry the knife in public, which was pertinent to assessing the credibility of Mr Carpenter’s excuse.

In summary, the court dismissed the appeal, holding that the error in the burden of proof did not create a real risk that the outcome of the trial was affected, and that the evidence regarding the previous warning was properly admitted. The conviction was thus upheld.

Orders