Dick v Police - [2020] NZHC 1389

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2019-412-000037

[2020] NZHC 1389

BETWEEN
NIKKI JANE DICK

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 2 June 2020

Appearances:

C M Andersen for the Appellant R D Smith for the Respondent

Judgment:

19 June 2020

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

Introduction

[1] On 15 October 2019, Nikki Dick was found guilty on three charges of assault in a judge-alone trial before Judge Harding.1 On 16 October 2019 she was convicted, ordered to pay $200 emotional harm reparation, undertake 60 hours’ community work and placed on supervision for 12 months.2 There was a special condition requiring her to attend assessment, counselling and courses to address anger management and preventing violence as may be directed by the probation officer. Ms Dick appeals each of these convictions.

The trial

[2]The trial began on 15 October 2019 with Ms Dick facing four charges, that:

1 Police v Dick [2020] NZDC 4458.
2 Police v Dick [2019] NZDC 23535.

DICK v POLICE [2020] NZHC 1389 [19 June 2020]

(a) between 1 March 2016 and 30 March 2016, she assaulted the complainant (the arm incident);

(b) on 24 June 2016, she assaulted the complainant (the pushing incident);

(c) on 16 March 2017, she injured the complainant in such circumstances that, if death had been caused, she would have been guilty of manslaughter (the punching incident); and

(d) between 1 August 2017 and 31 August 2017, she assaulted the complainant (the gate incident).

[3] After the complainant had given her evidence at trial, the dates on charge (a) were amended to between 1 March 2016 and 31 April 2016. The dates on charge (b) were amended to between 1 July and 31 July 2016. Charge (c) was amended to another charge of assault. After the complainant gave evidence, the Judge dismissed charge (d), the complainant having given no evidence in support of that charge.

Background

[4] There was no dispute that Ms Dick and the complainant met and had the beginnings of a relationship in Dunedin some years before the alleged offending. Ms Dick then went to the North Island and was in a relationship with another person.

[5] In 2015, the complainant helped Ms Dick leave that relationship and return to Dunedin. Ms Dick joined the complainant and the complainant’s family in their home in Dunedin and said she became part of their family. The relationship at that time was loving and nurturing. However, over time, there was fighting between the two parties but, as the complainant said, also “a lot of love”. The difficulties became more pronounced after Ms Dick chose to spend Christmas 2015 away from the complainant. There were also recurring issues between the parties over Ms Dick’s former relationship. It was often the subject of heated arguments.

[6] The arguments often involved yelling and, on occasions, Ms Dick would just try to leave the house. On some such occasions, the complainant would try to stop her…

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 Dick v Police

Details

AGLC: Dick v Police [2020] NZHC 1389
Case: [2020] NZHC 1389
Decision Date: 19 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Dick v Police, the High Court of New Zealand quashed the convictions of the appellant, Nikki Jane Dick, for three charges of assault. The appellant had been found guilty in a judge-alone trial. The appellant appealed on the grounds that the trial judge erred in his assessment of the evidence and that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. The court found that the judge had failed to properly resolve evidential disputes and that there were reasonable doubts as to the appellant's guilt. The convictions and sentence were quashed. The court found that there was no corroborative medical evidence to support the complainant's evidence and that the complainant's account of the incidents was inconsistent and unreliable. The appellant's evidence was found to be credible, and the court concluded that the evidence was not sufficient to prove each of the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Orders