Legal Research
Cases
Hall v The King

Hall v The King

Case [2024] NZHC 3371 13 November 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CRI-2024-442-23

[2024] NZHC 3371

BETWEEN
JAMES LEE HALL

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 31 October 2024

Appearances:

Appellant in person, with A Hall appearing as his McKenzie friend

I R Murray for Respondent

Judgment:

13 November 2024

JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J

[1] Mr Hall faced two charges of intimidation.¹ On 4 September 2024, in a judge-alone trial in the District Court at Nelson, Mr Hall was found guilty of each charge.² On the same day, Judge Barkle sentenced Mr Hall to 100 hours of community work and an emotional harm payment of $250 to each complainant.³

[2] Mr Hall filed a notice of appeal indicating that he appealed against conviction. His grounds for appeal are set out in the notice as follows:
Police never gave me PSO etc, charged me and then dropped the charges but only have certain timeframe to charge. Judge was very one sided never listened to me and threw out my evidence. The witnesses[’] statements (defendants) contradicted each other on the stand and were completely different form their original statements, they lied a lot, I got the blame for stuff my wife did. The Judge accepted video recordings as evidence in court that

¹      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 21(1)(a); maximum penalty imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding $2,000.
²      R v Hall [2024] NZDC 21468 [Conviction decision].
³      R v Hall [2024] NZDC 24699 [Sentence decision].

HALL v R [2024] NZHC 3371 [13 November 2024]

were taken of my private property and against Privacy Act and my humans rights and my child was in them. Everything the Crown asked for was granted and everything I asked for was denied. Sentencing was unfair as only proof of one charge not two. I have a family member willing to swear under oath to chopping a branch off my tree at the back, no proof it was even me.

[3] As the grounds include a complaint against the sentence being unfair, it is appropriate to consider the appeal as being against conviction and sentence. I record that this is how counsel for the Crown, Mr Murray, approached the matter in submissions.

[4]For the reasons below, I dismiss the appeal.

The offending

[5] The first complainant was Mr Hall’s neighbour, while the second complainant was in a relationship with the first complainant and often visited her home, where she lived with her son. While it is unclear why the animosity began, over early 2023, there was increasing hostility between Mr Hall and the complainants. This escalated, eventually resulting in an incident on 17 June 2023 that is the subject of the charges Mr Hall faced and therefore the convictions and sentence under appeal.

[6] The summary of facts records that on Saturday 17 June 2023, the first complainant was at home with her son. The second complainant…

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 The King

Details

AGLC: Hall v The King [2024] NZHC 3371
Case: [2024] NZHC 3371
Decision Date: 13 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

James Lee Hall appealed against his conviction and sentence for two charges of intimidation, brought under the Summary Offences Act 1981. The appeal was heard by McQueen J in the High Court of New Zealand. Mr Hall argued that the evidence was insufficient, that the judge was biased, that the amendment of charges was improper, that video evidence should not have been accepted, and that the sentence was unfair. He also sought to introduce new evidence through affidavits from himself and his wife.

The court found that the evidence presented in the trial was sufficient for the judge to convict Mr Hall. The judge had correctly set out the legal principles, applied the appropriate legal tests, and rejected Mr Hall’s evidence on the basis of its inconsistency and the judge’s assessment of credibility. The judge’s acceptance of the complainants’ evidence and video and audio evidence supported the convictions. The appeal against conviction was dismissed.

In terms of the appeal against sentence, the court found that the sentence of 100 hours of community work and an emotional harm payment was appropriate for the level of offending. Mr Hall’s argument that the sentence was unfair because there was only one incident but two charges was rejected because the charges arose from two distinct instances of intimidation against two complainants. The appeal against sentence was also dismissed.

The court declined to admit the affidavits as further evidence, as they were neither credible nor fresh. Allowing the evidence would have allowed Mr Hall a second chance at a defence, which is not in the interests of justice.

Orders