Grayson v The Queen - [2005] NZCA 177

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA436/04
THE QUEEN
v
GUY RICHARD GRAYSON
Hearing:23 June 2005

Court:Chambers, Potter and Doogue JJ
Counsel:T M Sutcliffe for Appellant

K J Glubb for Crown

Judgment:4 July 2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal out of time is granted.
B The appeal is dismissed.
REASONS
(Given by Potter J)
Table of Contents
Para No

Introduction  [1]
Background  [5]
Self-defence  [13]
Honest belief  [27]
Result  [32]
Introduction
[1]       Guy Richard Grayson appeals against a conviction of assaulting a Police Constable with intent to obstruct him in the execution of his duty under s 192(2) Crimes Act 1961 (Count 3 in the indictment).
[2]       The appellant was acquitted of two charges of assault of a Mr Soloman and a further charge of assault relating to the Police Constable.
[3]       The notice of appeal sets forth two grounds of appeal, that the verdict of the jury was unsupported by the evidence and that the trial Judge misdirected the jury. The first ground of appeal was not pursued.
[4]       The appeal proceeded on the basis that in her summing up to the jury the trial Judge, Judge Clark, misdirected the jury in that she:
(a)Failed to direct the jury that the defence of self-defence needed to be considered; and
(b)Failed to direct the jury that it would be a defence to the charge if the appellant honestly believed the Constable was not acting in the execution of his duty.

Background
[5]       On 9 January 2004 a Mr Gillard and a Mr Soloman arrived at the appellant’s home to discuss an issue concerning some dogs that were in their care. The visit quickly deteriorated into a brawl between the visitors, the appellant and his son Jesse. There was a lot of noise, shouting and fighting which attracted the attention of neighbours. The Police were called by the appellant’s wife. By the time the Police arrived Mr Gillard and Mr Soloman had retreated from the appellant’s property and there was abuse being exchanged between the parties. There were significant conflicts in the evidence in respect of the Police response to the situation when they arrived. Witnesses for the prosecution, who included two neighbours, Mr Flogdell and Mr Dunn, said that the Police acted in a calm manner, attempting to keep the parties separated and trying to settle things down, whereas the appellant and members of his family were agitated and verbally aggressive. The appellant and his partner Ms Sharpe, claimed that the Police actions were aggressive and aggravated the situation.
[6]       The Constable tried to separate Jesse and to have him sit on the ground, while the appellant was calling for him to come back to his family. Jesse moved away from the Constable, who said he twice warned Jesse that if he continued to move away he would be arrested. Jesse then ran away. The Constable advised him that he was arrested and chased him as he ran away.
[7]       The…

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 Grayson v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Grayson v The Queen [2005] NZCA 177
Case: [2005] NZCA 177
Decision Date: 4 July 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Grayson v The Queen involved an appeal by Guy Richard Grayson against his conviction for assaulting a Police Constable with intent to obstruct him in the execution of his duty, under section 192(2) of the Crimes Act 1961. The appellant was acquitted on two charges of assault and another charge related to the Police Constable. The appeal proceeded on the grounds that the trial Judge misdirected the jury by failing to consider the defence of self-defence and by not addressing the appellant's honest belief that the Constable was not acting in the execution of his duty. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, with the reasoning focusing on the absence of credible evidence supporting the defence of self-defence and the Judge's discretion in directing the jury on factual details.

The primary legal issues in this case revolved around whether the trial Judge erred by not directing the jury on the defence of self-defence and whether the Judge failed to adequately address the appellant's honest belief that the Constable was not acting in the execution of his duty. The appellant's counsel argued that the Judge should have allowed the jury to consider self-defence based on the appellant's evidence that he was trying to protect his son and perceived the Constable as out of control. Regarding the honest belief, counsel contended that the Judge should have highlighted the appellant's specific evidence about the Constable's conduct, which the appellant found to be unreasonable. The Crown, however, argued that there was no credible evidence to support either defence and that the Judge's direction was sufficient.

The Court of Appeal found that there was no material evidence to support the defence of self-defence as the appellant's own evidence did not suggest any act of self-defence or defence of another. Additionally, the Court held that the extent to which the Judge deals with factual detail in a summing up is within the Judge's discretion, subject to the requirement for balance. Therefore, the Court found no error in the Judge's direction to the jury on the appellant's honest belief about the Constable's conduct. As a result, the appeal was dismissed despite granting leave to appeal.

Orders