Farquhar v The King - [2025] NZHC 3213

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2025-412-3

[2025] NZHC 3213

BETWEEN
BRUCE SCOTT FARQUHAR

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 20 October 2025 (By way of AVL)

Appearances:

M E A Brosnan for Crown

T J Jackson and M L Boniface for Respondent

Judgment:

24 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 24 October 2025 at 4.15 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

FARQUHAR v R [2025] NZHC 3213 [24 October 2025]

Introduction

[1] On 29 November 2024, a jury found Mr Bruce Farquhar guilty of resisting a constable. He was convicted and sentenced to pay a $600 fine. Mr Farquhar now appeals this conviction.

[2] Initially he advanced his appeal on two grounds. The first challenged his conviction on the grounds the Judge’s summing up was defective. That ground was abandoned at the oral hearing. The remaining ground relates to the Judge’s failure to recuse himself, which the appellant says resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Facts

[3] It is unnecessary for the purposes of this hearing to set out the allegations. It is enough to note that Mr Farquhar was tried before a jury on the following charges:

(a)assaulting a police officer;1

(b)threatening to kill;2

(c)refusing to accompany a police officer;3 and

(d)resisting police.4

[4] A charge of driving with excess breath alcohol,5 arising from the same incident, was withdrawn on 23 April 2024 under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

[5] The charges arose from an incident on 15 August 2019 when Mr Farquhar was arrested after being pulled over by a police officer for allegedly speeding. The accounts then diverged. The prosecution evidence was that Mr Farquhar was administered a breath screening test which he failed and he then refused to co-operate

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 192(2)—maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act, s 306—maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Land Transport Act 1998, s 59(1)(b)—maximum penalty $4,500 fine.
4      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 23(a)—maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or $2,000 fine.
5      Land Transport Act 1998, s 56(1) and subs (3).

with all subsequent steps and became violent leading the police to physically restrain him. Mr Farquhar, however, said it was the officer who initiated the physical confrontation.

[6] In the end, the jury found Mr Farquhar not guilty on all charges, except the charge of resisting police. He was convicted and fined $600 on that charge.

Principles on appeal

[7] Section 232 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 provides that the High Court may only allow an appeal against conviction if satisfied that the jury’s verdict was “unreasonable” or that “a miscarriage of justice has occurred for any reason.”6 A miscarriage of justice means any error, irregularity, or occurrence in or in relation to the trial that has created a real risk that the outcome of the trial was affected or has resulted in an…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Farquhar v The King and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 3213
Decision Date: 24 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Farquhar v The King, the appellant, Bruce Farquhar, appealed against his conviction for resisting a police officer. The key issue before the court was whether the trial judge should have recused himself due to a previous decision to remove the appellant from a jury panel. The appellant argued that the judge's removal of him from the jury panel in a different case indicated bias and a miscarriage of justice. The court considered whether the judge's decision to remove the appellant from the jury panel was legally justified and whether it impacted the outcome of the current trial.

The court found that the judge had not acted within his jurisdiction when he removed the appellant from the jury panel, as the removal should have been based on an application by the potential juror. However, the court held that the removal did not demonstrate actual or apparent bias. The removal was based on the appellant's association with the Crown due to pending charges, and there was no evidence that the decision affected the trial's outcome. The jury acquitted the appellant on three of the four charges, indicating that they were not influenced by any bias on the part of the judge.

Based on the above, the court concluded that the fair-minded observer would not consider the judge's actions to be evidence of bias or personal animus. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no miscarriage of justice. The conviction and sentence for resisting a police officer would stand.

Orders