Legal Research
Cases
Greendrake v McConnochie

Greendrake v McConnochie

Case [2022] NZHC 1369 10 June 2022

Jurisdiction

Admissibility of Evidence

Expert Evidence

Res Judicata

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2021-425-22

[2022] NZHC 1369

UNDER the Criminal Procedure Act 2011

IN THE MATTER

an application for leave to appeal on questions of law

BETWEEN

EUGENE ANTHONY GREENDRAKE

Appellant

AND

WAYNE ALEXANDER McCONNOCHIE

Respondent

Appearances: E A Greendrake (Appellant) in person M R Walker for Respondent

Judgment:

10 June 2022

(Determined on the papers)

JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 June 2022 at 3.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

GREENDRAKE v McCONNOCHIE [2022] NZHC 1369 [10 June 2022]

Introduction

[1] The applicant, Eugene Greendrake, a self-represented private prosecutor, seeks leave to appeal the decision of Judge Walker dated 29 September 2021 made following a judge-alone trial conducted in the Invercargill District Court, by which charges brought against the respondent, Wayne McConnochie, under s 57(2) of the Dog Control Act 1996 and s 28A of the Animal Welfare Act 1999 were found not proven (the Judgment).1 Mr Greendrake submits the Judge made errors of law that have resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

[2] Mr McConnochie opposes the application for leave on the basis that the proposed appeal has no merit. He says the charges were not proven beyond reasonable doubt, no errors of law were made by the Judge, and a miscarriage of justice has not occurred.

The dismissed charges

[3] Mr Greendrake and Mr McConnochie had neighbouring rural properties in Leithen Street, Nightcaps, Southland.

[4] Mr Greendrake filed two charging documents. The first charged that on 18 August 2018 at the entrance to 22 Leithen Street, Nightcaps, Mr McConnochie: “[made] his dog attack two domestic (Peking) ducks”2 (the “Dog Control charge”).

[5] The second charge was that on the same date, Mr McConnochie was responsible for:3

[R]eckless ill-treatment of two domestic ducks, Drakie (male) and Duckie (female), by letting his dog to attack them. Drakie’s undertail was torn to pieces with internal organs let out, from which he died. Duckie was severely bitten in the neck and distressed. She lost her lifemate and eggs she was about to lay, spent 12 days at veterinary centre and is still recovering.

(the “Animal Welfare charge”)

1 Greendrake v McConnochie [2021] NZDC 19459 [the Judgment].
2 Contrary to s 57(2) Dog Control Act 1996.
3 Contrary to s 28A Animal Welfare Act 1999.

District Court decision

[6] Following a one-day trial on 29 September 2021, Judge Walker found the elements of both charges not made out. He found there was significant doubt whether Mr McConnochie was in fact the owner or possessor of the dog in question. Accordingly, he found the charges not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

[7] The Judge began his decision by outlining the elements of the charges required to be proved by the prosecutor beyond reasonable doubt.

[8] In order to establish the Dog Control charge, one of strict liability, the Judge noted the prosecutor must first prove Mr…

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 Greendrake v McConnochie

Details

AGLC: Greendrake v McConnochie [2022] NZHC 1369
Case: [2022] NZHC 1369
Decision Date: 10 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Eugene Greendrake, a private prosecutor, sought leave to appeal against the decision of Judge Walker, who found Wayne McConnochie not guilty of charges under the Dog Control Act 1996 and the Animal Welfare Act 1999. Mr Greendrake contended that there were errors of law that resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Mr McConnochie opposed the application, arguing that there were no errors of law and that the appeal had no merit. The legal issues for the court to decide were whether the grounds of appeal identified by Mr Greendrake amounted to questions of law and, if so, whether those questions of law led to a miscarriage of justice.

The court found that none of Mr Greendrake’s proposed grounds of appeal amounted to questions of law. The court found that the Judge was entitled to refuse a dock identification, to overrule Mr Greendrake’s proposed re-examination of Mrs Renton, and to find Mrs Renton’s evidence unreliable by reason of her age and infirmity. The court also found that the Judge’s treatment of the detail of the vehicle’s colour and his failure to draw inferences from Mr Groube’s evidence did not amount to an error of law. The court found that the Judge had assessed all the evidence before concluding that the prosecution had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the elements of both charges. The proposed grounds of appeal had no merit.

The court dismissed Mr Greendrake’s application for leave to appeal. Costs were reserved.

Orders