Legal Research
Cases
Gleason-Beard v R

Gleason-Beard v R

Case [2018] NZCA 349 6 September 2018

Miscarriage of Justice

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

FOR A COURT READY (FEE REQUIRED) VERSION PLEASE FOLLOW THIS LINK

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA220/2018
[2018] NZCA 349

BETWEEN	HEATHER GLEASON-BEARD Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	24 July 2018
Court:	Williams, Brewer and Thomas JJ
Counsel:	N P Bourke and K Paima for Appellant J E Mildenhall for Respondent
Judgment:	6 September 2018 at 4.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time is granted.
BThe appeal against conviction is allowed and the conviction is quashed.
CA judgment of acquittal is to be entered.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Thomas J)

The appellant, Heather Gleason-Beard, is a young Canadian who was visiting New Zealand in 2017. One night at a bar in Queenstown she took offence at something another bar patron said to her. She threw her drink at him, cutting his top lip as the glass connected with his face. On the morning of her trial on charges including a charge of wounding with intent to injure, the trial Judge initiated an in-chambers hearing where he expressed his doubt there was any defence to that charge and said a sentence of imprisonment was likely in the absence of a guilty plea. Eventually, the Judge gave a formal sentence indication on the alternative charge of injuring with reckless disregard. Ms Gleason‑Beard accepted the indication, pleaded guilty and was sentenced.[1]
[1]R v Gleason-Beard DC Invercargill CRI-2017-059-481, 21 March 2018.
Ms Gleason-Beard now appeals her conviction on the basis that comments made by the Judge in chambers improperly influenced her decision to plead guilty and the sentence indication which followed was unnecessarily rushed and unfair.
The notice of appeal was filed out of time for reasons adequately explained by trial counsel. The Crown does not oppose an extension of time and it is granted.

Factual background

On the night of 9 July 2017, Ms Gleason-Beard and the complainant were drinking at a bar in Queenstown. They began talking. Ms Gleason-Beard became upset with the complainant and the bar manager described her punching and kicking the complainant, and spitting in his face. The bar manager intervened. Ms Gleason‑Beard walked away but turned back and struck the complainant in the face, either with her glass or with that of the complainant. Bar staff removed Ms Gleason-Beard from the bar and called the police. When apprehended, Ms Gleason-Beard admitted to the police that she struck the complainant with a glass but denied spitting on him.
The complainant received a laceration to his top lip as a result of being struck by the glass but declined medical treatment. In his victim impact statement, the complainant said his tooth was chipped and he could not afford to go to the dentist.
In her interview with the police, Ms Gleason-Beard described the complainant being rude to her and insulting her. She recalled him saying, “[o]h you have small tits, you have bee sized tits”. While she did not know…

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 Gleason-Beard v R

Details

AGLC: Gleason-Beard v R [2018] NZCA 349
Case: [2018] NZCA 349
Decision Date: 6 September 2018 at 4.00 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal against conviction was heard in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, with Williams, Brewer, and Thomas JJ presiding. The appellant, Heather Gleason-Beard, a Canadian visitor to New Zealand, was convicted of injuring with reckless disregard after throwing her drink at a bar patron, resulting in a cut to his lip. She appealed the conviction, arguing that comments made by the trial Judge in chambers improperly influenced her decision to plead guilty and that the sentence indication process was rushed and unfair. The Crown did not oppose an extension of time for the appeal, which was granted.

The legal issues were whether the Judge's intervention constituted exceptional circumstances resulting in a miscarriage of justice, and whether Ms Gleason-Beard's proposed defence was of sufficient substance. The Court found that the Judge's unrequested sentence indication, identification of aggravating factors, and suggestion that imprisonment was likely created a real risk that the outcome of the trial was affected. The Judge's comments also undermined counsel's advice and diminished his standing in front of his client, which was inappropriate. The Court concluded that the Judge's intervention was capable of constituting exceptional circumstances resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, Ms Gleason-Beard had a sufficiently substantial defence, as she had a defence to both the wounding with intent to injure and injuring with reckless disregard charges.

The appeal against conviction was allowed, and the conviction was quashed. A judgment of acquittal was to be entered. Ms Gleason-Beard had completed her sentence of 100 hours of community work and paid $5,000 in reparation to the complainant. It was not in the interests of justice to order a retrial, so a judgment of acquittal was directed to be entered.

Orders