Drewet v The King - [2023] NZCA 192

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA460/2022
[2023] NZCA 192

BETWEEN	DWAYNE BRAD DREWET Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	28 March 2023 (further submissions received 19 April 2023)
Court:	French, Dunningham and Cull JJ
Counsel:	M J Taylor-Cyphers for Appellant M J Lillico for Respondent
Judgment:	31 May 2023 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

B The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by French J)

Introduction

Mr Drewet was convicted at trial of several charges of violent offending against his former partner. The presiding judge, Judge Bergseng, sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of two years and four months.[1]
[1]R v Drewet [2022] NZDC 21169.
Mr Drewet now appeals his convictions and sentence.

Background

Mr Drewet and the complainant had known each other for some 25 years. They began what was described in evidence as an on-again, off-again relationship in early 2017. The relationship ended in around August/September 2018. The charges arose out of two incidents, the first of which was alleged to have occurred in November 2017 and the second in September 2018.
The complainant’s account of what happened on each occasion was as follows.
The first incident took place on 14 November 2017. Following a heated argument Mr Drewet seized the complainant’s cell phone. When she tried to retrieve it, he threw her to the ground with extreme force. She landed on her side on a raised garden bed, her leg hitting a low wooden fence.
She subsequently made a complaint to police on 20 November 2017. That same day, she attended a medical centre where bruising on both her forearms was noted as was bruising on her left shin and left knee. Photographs of the injuries were also taken.
In late December 2017, the complainant wrote to police advising she wanted to withdraw the complaint.
The second incident in September 2018 took place at a time when the complainant and Mr Drewet were living in different centres. He drove to the town where she was living for a visit. He said he wanted to continue to be friends and to put things right. He stayed for over a week and they spent time together in his van.
Things were amicable until 14 September 2018, which was the last day of his visit. According to the complainant, Mr Drewet became verbally abusive and when she tried to get out of the van, he prevented her from leaving. At some point when she was in the back of the van on a mattress, he straddled her and began to punch her multiple times in the face and head area. He then put a hand around her throat and squeezed, at the same time covering her nose and mouth. She was unable to breathe for several seconds and came close to losing consciousness. In evidence she described the force that Mr Drewet had used on…

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 Drewet v The King

Details

AGLC: Drewet v The King [2023] NZCA 192
Case: [2023] NZCA 192
Decision Date: 31 May 2023 at 11 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dwayne Brad Drewet, the appellant, has lodged an appeal against his conviction and sentence in relation to violent offences committed against his former partner. The appeal was heard by French, Dunningham and Cull JJ. The appellant's counsel was M J Taylor-Cyphers and the respondent's counsel was M J Lillico. The main legal issues involved the admissibility of certain evidence and the directions given by the trial Judge to the jury. The Court found that the Judge's directions were not flawed and that the evidence in question was not prejudicial enough to warrant a new trial. The Court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and was within the range of sentencing for such offences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal against conviction and the appeal against sentence. The Court found that the Judge's directions to the jury were appropriate and that the evidence in question was not prejudicial enough to warrant a new trial. The Court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and was within the range of sentencing for such offences. The appellant's convictions and sentence stand as decided by the trial Judge.

Orders