Legal Research
Cases
Gorrie v Police

Gorrie v Police

Case [2018] NZHC 2129 17 August 2018

Statutory Interpretation

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2017-463-000056

[2018] NZHC 2129

IN THE MATTER OF an appeal against conviction and sentence

BETWEEN

DONALD JAMES GORRIE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 13 August 2018

Counsel:

R W Maze for the Appellant

R W Jenson for the Respondent

Judgment:

17 August 2018

JUDGMENT OF EDWARDS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Edwards on 17 August 2018 at 4.00 pm, pursuant to
r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Counsel: R W Maze, Christchurch

Solicitors: Pollett Legal (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Tauranga

GORRIE v POLICE [2018] NZHC 2129 [17 August 2018]

[1] Mr Gorrie was convicted of assaulting a child following a judge-alone trial in the Whakatane District Court.1 He was sentenced to a fine of $500 and costs of $130. Mr Gorrie appeals against conviction and sentence.

The offending

[2] The offending arose out of events at the Edgecumbe Mall on 18 January 2017. Mr Gorrie owns a local supermarket at the mall. The complainant, a 10-year-old boy, was near the entrance to Mr Gorrie’s shop, up a narrow alleyway which leads from College Street into the mall and into the supermarket.

[3] It appears there is some history between Mr Gorrie and the complainant. The complainant had been banned from entering Mr Gorrie’s shop in the weeks before the incident.

[4] It was not in dispute at trial that there had been an interaction between Mr Gorrie and the complainant that constituted an assault. However, there was a dispute about the finer details about what had occurred. In essence, the Judge found that the assault involved Mr Gorrie grabbing the complainant by the hoodie whilst on his bike, the complainant coming off his bike, and Mr Gorrie continuing to hold the complainant when he stood up, only releasing him when his brother intervened.

The Judge’s decision

[5] The issue at trial was whether Mr Gorrie was acting in defence of another under s 48 of the Crimes Act 1961.

[6] The Judge heard evidence from the complainant, two civilian witnesses, and the officer in charge. Mr Gorrie also elected to give evidence in his own defence. The evidence of one of the civilian witnesses was put to one side due to inconsistencies between what she had told police she had seen on the day and what she said in Court. The evidence of the complainant and the other eyewitness was accepted by the Judge, who made findings of fact as follows:

1 Pursuant to s 194(a) of the Crimes Act 1961.

[9] On that issue and before turning to self-defence I accept the evidence of the complainant, [complainant’s name], and the witness Donaldson as to what happened. I conclude beyond reasonable doubt that it was the hoodie that was grabbed and that even after the bike was stopped Mr Gorrie kept hold of the boy by his clothing. He did go…

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 Gorrie v Police

Details

AGLC: Gorrie v Police [2018] NZHC 2129
Case: [2018] NZHC 2129
Decision Date: 17 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Gorrie v Police involves an appeal by Donald James Gorrie against his conviction and sentence in the Whakatane District Court. Gorrie was convicted of assaulting a 10-year-old boy after grabbing him by the hoodie while he was on his bike, causing the boy to fall off and continue to hold him even after he stood up. The appeal against conviction focuses on whether Gorrie was acting in defence of another under s 48 of the Crimes Act 1961, and whether the trial Judge erred in assessing the evidence. The appeal against sentence challenges the imposition of a fine without considering alternatives such as a discharge without conviction. Justice Edwards found that the Judge did not err in his assessment of the evidence, as there was a sufficient evidential foundation to conclude that Gorrie was not acting in defence of another. The appeal against sentence was also dismissed, as the fine imposed was not manifestly excessive and served to denounce Gorrie's actions. The appeal against conviction and sentence was ultimately dismissed.

Orders