Hall v The Queen - [2017] NZHC 1489

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANT(S) PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF WITNESS/VICTIM/CONNECTED PERSON(S) PURSUANT TO S 202
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

CRI-2017-425-8 [2017] NZHC 1489

BETWEEN
CRAIG ANTHONY HALL

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: 19 June 2017

Appearances:

S Vidal for Appellant
I Murray for Respondent

Judgment:

30 June 2017

JUDGMENT OF NICHOLAS DAVIDSON J

Introduction

[1] On 24 January 2017 the appellant, Mr Hall, was convicted after a Judge alone trial in the District Court on one charge of assault with intent to commit sexual violation and two charges of indecent assault.1 He was acquitted on one other charge of assault with intent to commit sexual violation. He was sentenced to three years four months imprisonment on 15 February.2

[2] During the course of the trial, Judge Callaghan made two rulings. On 16 January, he dismissed an application for the defence to put a question to the complainant regarding sexual experience with another person.3 On 17 January he dismissed an application for a mistrial.4

[3] The appellant appeals against conviction on the basis that the Judge erred in dismissing these applications. He also appeals on the basis that the Judge erred when assessing credibility. For the reasons that follow, the appeal is dismissed.

Background

[4] The charges related to alleged sexual offending between 2011 and 2015 against three complainants: [RR], [SS], and [SO].

[5] The factual setting was that the appellant lived in Dunedin but during 2014 stayed with [C] in Invercargill. [RR] lived there and was [C]’s partner. [SS] lived there and was his daughter. [SO] was a friend of one of [C]’s daughters.

[6] In respect of [SS] the allegation was that on an occasion after her 12th birthday he sat on top of her, told her to be quiet, put his hand on her breast area and removed her jeans and underwear. He then exposed his penis and placed it on or near her vagina while moving back and forth. This gave rise to the first charge of assault with intent to commit sexual violation. The defence case was that the allegations were false, and the assault never took place.

[7] In relation to [RR], the allegation was that after leaving a tavern in the early hours of the morning the appellant kissed her, then physically carried her up a driveway or alleyway for a short distance. He restrained her, took down her tights and underwear, exposed his penis, and attempted to put his penis into her vagina. It was also alleged that the following morning he grabbed her in the groin area and told her he could trust her to say nothing. A week later he again grabbed her between her legs and said he was going to have sex with her. This gave rise to the second charge of assault with intent to…

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 Queen

Details

AGLC: Hall v The Queen [2017] NZHC 1489
Case: [2017] NZHC 1489
Decision Date: 30 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Craig Anthony Hall appeals against his conviction and sentence on three charges of sexual assault. The appellant was convicted in the District Court of assault with intent to commit sexual violation in relation to two complainants and indecent assault in relation to a third complainant. The appellant appeals on the basis that the Judge erred in dismissing applications to question one complainant about her sexual conduct with her partner, to question another complainant about a prior inconsistent statement, and in his assessment of the credibility of the complainants. The appeal was dismissed. The court found that the appellant had not demonstrated that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. The court found that the Judge was correct in dismissing the application to question one complainant about her sexual conduct with her partner because it was irrelevant to the issue of credibility and did not meet the relevance threshold in s 44 of the Evidence Act. The court found that the Judge was also correct in dismissing the application for a mistrial in relation to a prior inconsistent statement. The court found that the defence had not demonstrated that a miscarriage of justice had occurred because the appellant had not shown that there was a change in circumstances that might reasonably affect the decision whether to elect trial by jury. Finally, the court found that the Judge’s assessment of credibility was open to him and reasonable.

Orders