Ford v The King - [2024] NZSC 118

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 67/2024
[2024] NZSC 118

BETWEEN	LAYNE BRENT FORD Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Kós and Miller JJ
Counsel:	A J Bailey for Applicant A J Ewing for Respondent
Judgment:	18 September 2024

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Ford and two other members of the Mongols gang visited Mr Geels, a member of the Road Knights gang, at his home. They brought with them a shotgun, intending to intimidate him. Their plan went awry. Mr Geels attacked them physically and drove them off his property. In the course of that counterattack, Mr Geels received a gunshot wound to his hip. A police search of the grounds later turned up a broken machete.
Mr Ford and his co-defendant were tried and convicted for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Mr Geels refused to give evidence; Mr Ford and his co-defendants elected not to do so. Nor did they give evidential interviews to the police. Mr Ford did however sign a statement that suggested two thin wounds to his torso had been caused by the machete. The sole witness who saw the incident did not see the machete in Mr Geels’ hands. Forensic evidence did not link the machete to the applicant.
Judge O’Driscoll refused to leave self-defence to the jury.[1] He said there was no evidence that Mr Ford shot Mr Geels in self-defence. And if one of the co-offenders shot Mr Geels because he was attacking Mr Ford, there needed to be a plausible, credible narrative that they had done so because they were acting in self-defence. There was however no evidence by which it could be inferred that any of the defendants were acting in self-defence, as opposed to discharging the firearm in pursuance of the common agreement to intimidate Mr Geels. Accordingly, the Judge did not think there was a plausible and credible narrative to allow self-defence to be placed before the jury, for any of the defendants.
[1]See R v Wheeler [2023] NZDC 9152 at [6] and [59]–[60].
The Court of Appeal agreed he was right not to do so, saying that the defence is not to be put if it requires the jury to speculate.[2] It relied on its prior decisions in R v Tavete and R v Kerr:[3]
The general principle is not in doubt. Self-defence should be put to the jury where, from the evidence led by the Crown or given by or on behalf of the accused, or from a combination of both, there is a credible or plausible narrative which might lead the jury to entertain the reasonable possibility of self-defence.
[2]Ford v R [2024] NZCA 239 (Mallon, Lang and Moore JJ) [CA judgment] at [45].
[3]At [39] citing R v Tavete [1988] 1 NZLR 428 (CA) at 430. See also R v Kerr [1976] 1 NZLR 335 (CA) at 340 as…

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 Ford v The King

Details

AGLC: Ford v The King [2024] NZSC 118
Case: [2024] NZSC 118
Decision Date: 18 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ford v The King, heard by Glazebrook, Kós, and Miller JJ, concerns Layne Brent Ford, who sought leave to appeal against his conviction for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The incident arose when Ford and two others from the Mongols gang visited Mr Geels, a member of the Road Knights gang, with a shotgun to intimidate him. The visit turned violent, with Mr Geels attacking the visitors and receiving a gunshot wound during the altercation. Ford and his co-defendant were convicted of the offence, though the basis for the appeal is the trial judge's refusal to leave self-defence to the jury. The primary legal issue in this case was whether the trial judge correctly refused to leave self-defence to the jury when Ford's defence suggested he was shot in response to an attack with a machete. The Court of Appeal had upheld the trial judge's decision, holding that the defence of self-defence should not be put to the jury if it requires speculation.

The Supreme Court considered the established principles for determining when self-defence should be put to the jury. It noted that self-defence can only be considered if there is a credible or plausible narrative from the evidence presented. In this instance, the only evidence of the machete did not establish when or if it was used, leaving a gap in the evidence. The Supreme Court held that the trial judge did not err in refusing to leave self-defence to the jury, as there was no evidence pointing to a reasonable use of force by Ford in response to a specific threat. The Court concluded that there was no realistic prospect of the Court finding a miscarriage of justice, and therefore dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

The Supreme Court's decision was grounded in the principle that self-defence requires a clear and logical threat necessitating a reasonable use of force. The evidence did not support the claim that Mr Geels used a machete against Ford before the shot was fired, and thus, there was no basis for self-defence to be considered by the jury. The principles set out in previous cases were applied consistently, reinforcing the need for a plausible and credible narrative to support a claim of self-defence. The dismissal of the application for leave to appeal affirmed the lower courts' decisions, maintaining the conviction of Ford for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

Orders