Cronin v Police - [2017] NZHC 3078

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2017-419-66 [2017] NZHC 3078

BETWEEN
REGAN PAUL CRONIN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 17 November 2017

Counsel:

G Boot for Appellant
T Needham for Respondent

Judgment:

12 December 2017

JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

This judgment was delivered by me on 12 December 2017 at 4.00 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date: ………………………….

Solicitors: Gavin Boot Law, Hamilton
Crown Solicitor, Hamilton

CRONIN v POLICE [2017] NZHC 3078 [12 December 2017]

[1] Mr Cronin appeals against conviction on one charge of burglary.1 The matter was considered in a Judge-alone hearing.2 Mr Cronin appeals on the basis the Judge erred in fact and law and therefore the verdict was wrong. He submits:

(a) the identification evidence relied upon by the Judge was unreliable;

(b)the circumstantial evidence adduced by the police was not sufficient to prove the charge; and

(c) insufficient weight was given to the defence witness evidence.

Background

The burglary

[2] I adopt Judge Saunders’ description of the burglary, which is not disputed:

(a) On 21 August 2015, a burglar entered and left Lifestyle Meats through the rear down. He was only in the building for a short time, approximately two minutes. The interior alarm located above the rear door was activated by the burglar at 10.47 pm, and remained on until it was deactivated some nine minutes later, at 10.56 pm.

(b)There was no sign of a forced entry. The rear door had been locked and the alarm set earlier that night, so a key was likely used by the burglar to enter the shop. The rear door was relocked on departure.

(c) The rear CCTV camera was also activated and it, for the most part, recorded the actions taken by the burglar both when he entered Lifestyle Meats and when he left. Consequently, there are images of both the front and back view of him. The CCTV camera was aimed straight ahead through the downstairs retail area of Lifestyle Meats. It
did not cover the stairs to the left of the rear door leading to an upstairs

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a).
2 Police v Cronin [2017] NZDC 10773.

office, so a person walking up those stairs could do so without being recorded.

(d)Float money was hidden overnight in one of two places: in a tin sausage filler kept downstairs in the toilet area, or in the bottom drawer of a filing cabinet located upstairs. The CCTV camera captured the burglar coming down the left-hand side of the camera, through to the toilet area downstairs where the sausage filler was kept, and then back towards the camera and the rear door. The float of $300 was taken from the filing cabinet drawer upstairs.

The key issue: identification

[3] At trial the key issue in dispute was the identification by the store manager, Mr Marcum and the owner, Mr Klein, of Mr Cronin from…

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 Cronin v Police

Details

AGLC: Cronin v Police [2017] NZHC 3078
Case: [2017] NZHC 3078
Decision Date: 12 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Cronin v Police, the appellant, Regan Paul Cronin, challenged his conviction for burglary, arguing that the judge erred in fact and law, leading to an incorrect verdict. The appellant contended that the identification evidence was unreliable, the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to prove the charge, and insufficient weight was given to the defence witness evidence. The court had to determine whether the judge's assessment of the evidence was correct and whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred.

The judge meticulously evaluated the identification evidence provided by the store manager, Mr Marcum, and the owner, Mr Klein. The judge considered the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, noting the potential for bias due to their close relationships and alcohol consumption. Despite the CCTV footage not being particularly clear, the judge concluded that Mr Marcum and Mr Klein were credible and reliable witnesses, and their identification of Mr Cronin was accurate due to his distinctive features and familiarity with the premises. The judge also highlighted the strong circumstantial evidence, including Mr Cronin's knowledge of the security system and his proximity to the crime scene.

The court assessed the appeal by examining whether there was an error or irregularity, excluding irregularities that could not have affected the result, considering the potential adverse effect of any errors, and exercising discretion based on the totality of the evidence. The court found no error in the judge's assessment of the identification evidence, which was relevant, not unfairly prejudicial, and established beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstantial evidence, when combined with the identification evidence, supported a compelling picture of Mr Cronin's guilt. The court also rejected the claim that insufficient weight was given to the defence witnesses, finding ample basis for the judge to treat their alibi evidence with scepticism.

Ultimately, the court concluded that no miscarriage of justice had occurred, and the appeal was dismissed. The judge's assessment of the evidence was correct, and the guilty verdict was the only possible verdict on the evidence.

Orders