Giles v The Queen - [2010] NZCA 254

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA617/2009
CA618/2009
[2010] NZCA 254
BETWEENSTACEY IVAN GILES AND TERENCE NEIL GILES

Appellants

ANDTHE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing:18 May 2010

Court:William Young P, Chisholm and Keane JJ
Counsel:J H M Eaton for Appellants

C L Mander for Respondent

Judgment:16 June 2010 at 3 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeals against conviction are dismissed.

REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by William Young P)
Introduction
[1]        The two appellants are Terence (Terry) and Stacey Giles. They are, respectively, father and son and for the sake of convenience we will refer to them by their first names. They held liquor licences in respect of two premises in Hanmer, the Hot Springs Hotel and the Saints Cafe and Bar. The case concerns events which occurred on 11 February 2007 and, in particular, interactions that day between the two appellants and two young local men, Duncan Wright and Dene Hill.
[2]        It is common ground that Messrs Wright and Hill and a third man were at the Hot Springs Hotel around lunch time on Sunday 11 February. As a result of some unpleasantness, Terry Giles served all three men with trespass notices. This was in the presence of a local police officer, Senior Constable Chris Hughey, who had arrived in response to a 111 call. The trespass notices related to both the Hot Springs Hotel and the nearby Saints Cafe.
[3]        The Crown case at trial proceeded on the basis that later that afternoon the two appellants lured Messrs Wright and Hill into the Saints Cafe and seriously assaulted them. They then sought to cover up those assaults and add to the grief of Messrs Wright and Hill with a false complaint of trespass, a complaint which resulted in Messrs Wright and Hill being arrested and charged with wilful trespass.
[4]        The appellants were tried in a District Court at Christchurch before Judge Farish and a jury in March last year on an indictment which contained three counts:
(a)count one: an allegation against Stacey Giles that he assaulted Duncan Wright with intent to injure;
(b)count two: an allegation against Terry Giles that he assaulted Dene Hill; and
(c)count three: an allegation against both appellants that they had attempted to pervert the course of justice by making a false complaint of wilful trespass.

[5]        The jury were unable to agree on count one, Terry Giles was acquitted on count two and both appellants were found guilty on count three.
[6]        They now appeal against conviction.
An overview of the facts
[7]        The Crown case at trial depended primarily on the evidence of Messrs Wright and Hill.
[8]        Both men had spent the preceding night at the farm owned by Mr Wright’s parents. They and a number of other young men had consumed a substantial quantity of alcohol. The next morning, and without breakfast, they went pig hunting. On their return from pig hunting they consumed some more alcohol. They also managed to spray each other with a blue…

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 Giles v The Queen 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: [2010] NZCA 254
Decision Date: 16 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal by Terence and Stacey Giles against their convictions for perverting the course of justice by making a false complaint of trespass. The appellants, father and son, held liquor licenses for two premises in Hanmer, the Hot Springs Hotel and the Saints Cafe and Bar. The case concerned events that occurred on 11 February 2007, specifically the interactions between the appellants and two young local men, Duncan Wright and Dene Hill. The Crown alleged that the appellants lured the two young men into the Saints Cafe and seriously assaulted them before covering up the assaults and making a false complaint of trespass against them.

The appellants were tried in the District Court and found guilty on the charge of perverting the course of justice by making a false complaint of trespass. They were acquitted on other charges. The appellants appealed against their conviction, raising four grounds: the verdict was unreasonable and unable to be supported on the evidence, there was a misdirection as to the elements of the offence, the verdicts were inconsistent, and the summing up was unbalanced and unfair.

The Court of Appeal found that the jury was entitled to conclude that the appellants made a false complaint of trespass, and that there was no misdirection. The inconsistent verdicts were not problematic, as the jury had reasonable grounds to find the appellants guilty on the charge of perverting the justice by making a false complaint of trespass while having doubts on the other charges. Finally, the Court found that the summing up was fair, despite some criticisms from the appellants' counsel.

The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions of the appellants were upheld.

Orders