Hall v Police - [2012] NZHC 2328

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

CRI-2012-425-000022 [2012] NZHC 2328

BETWEEN TONY DOUGLAS HALL Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 11 September 2012

Counsel: P D Gray for Appellant
M J Thomas for Respondent

Judgment: 11 September 2012

ORAL JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] On 24 May 2012 Mr Hall was convicted of common assault in the

District Court at Gore. He now appeals against his conviction.

[2] The complainant, Mr Cleaver, worked as an employee of Mr Hall in his dairy shed. On 19 October 2011 Mr Cleaver and Mr Hall had a discussion about Mr Cleaver’s employment which left Mr Cleaver feeling disgruntled. The following morning Mr Hall noted a piece of machinery in the milk shed was overflowing with milk. He believed Mr Cleaver knew about this but failed to tell him because of his disgruntlement. Terse words were exchanged. Mr Hall may have summarily dismissed Mr Cleaver at this point. However, I make no finding that Mr Hall did in fact dismiss Mr Cleaver.

[3] According to Mr Cleaver he began to leave and said “I’ll see you in Court”.

Mr Hall then said if they were going to court then he may as well make it worthwhile

HALL V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC INV CRI-2012-425-000022 [11 September 2012]

and hit Mr Cleaver once in the head, twice in the chest and pushed him over some metal rails that separate the cow lanes in the milking shed. An item of Mr Cleaver’s clothing, a “hoodie” was torn further during this incident.[1]

[1] The “hoodie” had previously a small tear to its top.

[4] Mr Hall denies the assault happened and instead says Mr Cleaver made the “court” comment and then left. Mr Cleaver called the police. A police officer took photographs of him and his torn “hoodie”.

District Court judgment

[5] The District Court Judge heard evidence from both Mr Cleaver and Mr Hall. The Judge was impressed by Mr Cleaver’s evidence. In particular the District Court Judge noted Mr Cleaver made concessions about matters that were not to his advantage. The District Court Judge thought the fact that Mr Cleaver quickly complained to the police was significant in that it confirmed he was clearly aggrieved about what had happened. The District Court Judge was acutely aware that he had to resolve a question of credibility. He believed Mr Cleaver had acted in a way which was entirely consistent with him having been assaulted. The fact the constable did not detect any injury was not thought to be determinative.

Submissions on appeal

[6] In this Court, Mr Gray, counsel for Mr Hall submits that the District Court Judge resolved the issue of credibility in an unsatisfactory way. He submits that it is not a question of who the Judge believed but whether there was a reasonable possibility that the complainant could have given false evidence. Mr Gray submits that assessing credibility is not a matter of impression.[2] He emphasises the real issue…

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 Hall v Police

Details

AGLC: Hall v Police [2012] NZHC 2328
Case: [2012] NZHC 2328
Decision Date: 11 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tony Douglas Hall appeals his conviction of common assault against the New Zealand Police. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand in Invercargill. The legal issues before the court were whether the District Court Judge erred in assessing the credibility of the complainant, Mr Cleaver, and whether the Police had proven the charge against Mr Hall beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the District Court Judge had carefully weighed up both accounts and believed Mr Cleaver's evidence. The court concluded that there was nothing to suggest that the District Court Judge's assessment of credibility was wrong, and the appeal must be dismissed.

In this case, the court examined the evidence presented and found that the District Court Judge had the advantage of hearing all the points raised by Mr Hall. The District Court Judge had heard the evidence and made credibility findings based on objective facts such as the inconsistencies between Mr Cleaver’s two statements and the lack of injury. The court agreed with the District Court Judge’s findings that Mr Cleaver's reaction that morning when he went to the police was persuasive evidence that his complaint was true. The court found that the District Court Judge's findings on Mr Cleaver's credibility were very reasonable and could not be disturbed.

The court concluded that there was no basis for reaching a different conclusion from that reached by the District Court Judge. The court found that the Police had proven the charge against Mr Hall beyond reasonable doubt, and the appeal must be dismissed. The decision of the District Court cannot be disturbed, and the appeal is dismissed.

Orders