Legal Research
Cases
Elliot v Police

Elliot v Police

Case [2024] NZHC 3244 4 November 2024

Miscarriage of Justice

Criminal Disclosure

Assessment of Evidence

Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2024-441-23

[2024] NZHC 3244

BETWEEN
STEPHEN RANIERA RANGI ELLIOT

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 22 October 2024

Appearances:

W R Hawkins for Appellant S B Manning for Respondent

Judgment:

4 November 2024

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

(Appeal against conviction)

Introduction

[1] On 23 January 2024, Mr Stephen Elliot, was convicted of one charge of stealing $10,000 after a judge-alone trial in the District Court at Napier.1 For this offending, Mr Elliot was sentenced to four months’ community detention, 150 hours of community work and nine months’ supervision. He was also ordered to pay $5,000 to the victim of the offending.2

[2] Mr Elliot now appeals his conviction. He contends that the Judge erred in his assessment of the evidence to such an extent that a miscarriage of justice occurred. He says, in the alternative, that a miscarriage of justice occurred anyway as the Police failed to provide full disclosure before the trial. In support of this alternative ground

1 Police v Elliot [2024] NZDC 1260 [Decision under appeal]; and Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223. Maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
2 Police v Elliot [2024] NZDC 18522 at [17]–[19].

ELLIOT v POLICE [2024] NZHC 3244 [4 November 2024]

of appeal, Mr Elliot seeks leave to file an affidavit from his trial counsel, Ms Amelia Gunson, on the effect the non-disclosure had on her legal advice and, therefore, the trial. Mr Elliot has, accordingly, waived privilege in respect of the evidence that has been filed.

Background

The offending

[3] Mr Elliot worked as an employment advocate and was the director of Deco City Employment Law, a company he set up to provide employment advocacy services. On 28 March 2021, the victim, Ms Rukshana Pitman, engaged Mr Elliot as she wanted to bring a personal grievance against her previous employer. An agreement was reached that Mr Elliot would work for Ms Pitman on a “no-win, no-fee” basis, but that, if Ms Pitman was successful, she would pay 33 per cent of the award to Mr Elliot. This agreement was later changed so that Mr Elliot would receive 50 per cent of any award.

[4] On 2 June 2021, following mediation, a settlement was reached, and Ms Pitman’s former employer agreed to pay her $10,000. Mr Elliot advised Ms Pitman that as she had been on a benefit through Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ), WINZ was likely to stop her benefit and take the whole award of $10,000. He, therefore, suggested the award be paid to Deco City Employment Law and he would pay her a sum of the award in cash.

[5] Deco City Employment Law received the award of $10,000 and no money was paid to Ms Pitman. Accordingly, Mr Elliot, through his position as director of Deco City Employment Law, stole $10,000 that was rightfully Ms Pitman’s.

The trial and decision

[6] The Judge set out the following…

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 Elliot v Police

Details

AGLC: Elliot v Police [2024] NZHC 3244
Case: [2024] NZHC 3244
Decision Date: 4 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Elliot v Police [2024] NZHC 3244 was an appeal against the conviction of Mr Stephen Elliot who was found guilty of stealing $10,000 in a case heard by the District Court. Mr Elliot was sentenced to four months' community detention, 150 hours of community work, and nine months' supervision. Additionally, he was ordered to pay $5,000 to the victim. Mr Elliot appealed his conviction on two grounds: first, that the Judge erred in his assessment of the evidence, and second, that a miscarriage of justice occurred because the Police failed to provide full disclosure before the trial. Mr Elliot sought leave to file an affidavit from his trial counsel to support his appeal.

The court considered Mr Elliot's arguments, focusing on the non-disclosure of an email sent by Mr Elliot to Senior Constable Liley. Mr Elliot argued that this email would have altered his counsel's advice and potentially the outcome of the trial. However, the court found that the email was in Mr Elliot's possession and largely irrelevant to the case. It also noted that the email could not have been admitted at trial if Mr Elliot had given evidence, due to the provisions of the Evidence Act 2006.

The court also examined Mr Elliot's second ground of appeal, which alleged errors in the Judge's assessment of the evidence. Mr Elliot's counsel argued that the Judge should have considered the possibility that Mr Elliot might waive his fee and that there was an explanation for why the victim would give away the settlement figure. The court found that while these possibilities existed, they did not align with the documentary evidence and the Judge's assessment of the victim's credibility. The court concluded that the Judge made no error in his assessment of the evidence and, therefore, there was no miscarriage of justice.

Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the District Court were upheld. The court found that the failure to disclose the email was a breach of the Criminal Disclosure Act but did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. The court also determined that the Judge's assessment of the evidence was correct and supported by the evidence presented.

Orders