Greensmith v Police - [2022] NZCA 190

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA199/2021
[2022] NZCA 190

BETWEEN	MICHAEL NOEL GREENSMITH Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Court:	Courtney, Thomas and Duffy JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in Person T R Simpson for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	18 May 2022 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time for leave to appeal is granted.
BThe application for leave to appeal is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Courtney J)

Introduction

In 2017, following a three-day trial in the District Court at Auckland, Mr Greensmith was found guilty of two charges of assault and one of resisting a constable in the exercise of their duty.[1] Judge Powell declined his application for a discharge without conviction.[2] Mr Greensmith was fined $200 on each of the assault charges, and ordered to pay reparation to the complainant totalling $500 and court costs. On the charge of resisting a police constable Mr Greensmith was fined $150 and ordered to pay court costs.[3]
[1]Police v Greensmith [2017] NZDC 23507 [Trial judgment].
[2]Police v Greensmith [2017] NZDC 29631 [Discharge and Sentencing judgment].
[3]At [22].
The District Court Judge described the offending and Mr Greensmith’s defence in the following terms:
[2]       The first of the assault charges arose on the evening of 25 July 2016 when … Mr Greensmith came out of his flat at Harbour View Road, Point Chevalier, and threw a bucket of water over his landlady, Nancy Fong-Anae, as she was walking up a set of stairs located outside Mr Greensmith’s flat up to her own flat, directly above Mr Greensmith’s.
[3]       The remaining charges arose the next day. On the morning of 26 July 2016, … Mr Greensmith threw a further bucket of water over Ms Fong-Anae as she walked down her stairway. After the Police arrived to investigate, … Ms Fong-Anae identified Mr Greensmith [and] he was arrested by Constable Kalra but Mr Greensmith prevented Constable Kalra [from] taking him into custody by closing the door of his flat against Constable Kalra.
[4]       Mr Greensmith has denied assaulting Ms Fong-Anae on either occasion and/or that he resisted Constable Kalra. Instead Mr Greensmith contends that none of the evidence relied on by the prosecution is credible. Mr Greensmith has submitted that he was the victim of an elaborate conspiracy, orchestrated by Ms Fong-Anae, in which not only Ms Fong-Anae, but other tenants at Harbour View Road and the Police participated in order to assist Ms Fong-Anae to terminate his tenancy …
Downs J dismissed Mr Greensmith’s appeals against both his convictions and sentence.[4] Mr Greensmith applies for an extension of time to apply for leave to bring a second appeal.
[4]Greensmith v Police [2018] NZHC 2262 [Appeal judgment].
The application for leave to bring a second appeal is two and a half years out of date. There was no opposition to this application and we therefore grant the extension.

Application for leave

Under…

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 Greensmith v Police

Details

AGLC: Greensmith v Police [2022] NZCA 190
Case: [2022] NZCA 190
Decision Date: 18 May 2022 at 10 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Michael Noel Greensmith applied to the Court of Appeal of New Zealand for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence for two charges of assault and one of resisting a constable in the exercise of their duty. These charges arose from an incident in which Mr Greensmith threw buckets of water over his landlady, Nancy Fong-Anae, and resisted arrest by a police officer. Mr Greensmith maintains his innocence, claiming to have been the victim of a conspiracy by Ms Fong-Anae, other tenants, and the police. The District Court Judge had dismissed Mr Greensmith's appeals against both his convictions and sentence. The Court of Appeal had to decide whether the application for an extension of time for leave to appeal should be granted and whether leave to appeal should be granted. The Court of Appeal found that the application for an extension of time for leave to appeal should be granted, as there was no opposition to the application. However, the application for leave to appeal was declined, as the appeal did not involve a matter of general or public importance, nor was there a miscarriage of justice that may have occurred or may occur if the appeal was not heard. The Court of Appeal found no error in the Judge's decision and was satisfied that no miscarriage of justice may have occurred or may occur if the appeal was not heard. The Court of Appeal granted the application for an extension of time for leave to appeal and declined the application for leave to appeal.

Orders