Hibbs v Police - [2014] NZHC 910

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2014-409-008 [2014] NZHC 910

CHRISTOPHER HIBBS

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing: 1 May 2014

Appearances:

R W Maze for Appellant
K J Basire for Respondent

Judgment:

6 May 2014

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] Christopher Hibbs appeals against the conviction His Honour, Judge Neave entered against him on 20 December 2013, for wilful damage contrary to s 11(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981.

Background

[2] The incident giving rise to the charge occurred in the context of a family dispute, the complexities of which are not all material to this appeal. It is sufficient to say that when Mr Hibbs’s mother resumed a relationship with a Mr Tony Johnston, the defendant moved out of her house. He had to have somewhere to store various items of equipment he owned and they were stored in the garage of his sister Jessica Prisk and her adoptive father, Mr Prisk.

[3] Mr Johnston considered that some of the items stored in Mr Prisk’s garage

belonged to him and had wrongfully been removed by Mr Hibbs. On the morning of

HIBBS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 910 [6 May 2014]

12 May 2013, Mr Johnston came over and, with the acquiescence of Ms Prisk, picked up and took away those items which he said belonged to him.

[4] Mr Hibbs got wind of this and came over to the Prisks’ home that afternoon accompanied by a friend, Nicholas Gilmore. When he saw that a significant number of the items he had stored in the garage were gone, Ms Prisk, the complainant says that he became very angry. He telephoned the police about the incident and that is recorded on a 111 call. He also (although he denies it) used Ms Prisk’s portable landline telephone to contact Mr Johnston. When he was in the back courtyard of Mr Frisk’s property, the allegation is that as he concluded his call to Mr Johnston, he had a fit of temper and threw the telephone onto the ground where it broke.

[5] There were other allegations that he threatened his sister, Ms Prisk, with an air gun and said he was going to “blow your house up”, but the Judge dismissed those charges, determining there was insufficient evidence to convict on them.

[6] Mr Hibbs denied all three charges, including breaking the telephone.

District Court decision

[7] The Judge recited the background as set out above. On the pertinent charge of the landline telephone being intentionally broken by Mr Hibbs, the Judge accepted the evidence of Ms Prisk, the complainant, who said she saw the defendant deliberately throw the telephone down. He also relied on the evidence of Mr Prisk, Jessica’s 72 year old father. Although Mr Prisk did not see the event, he recalled Mr Hibbs rushing through the house out the back door into the back courtyard and heard a noise which he took to be the telephone breaking, and then, when Mr Hibbs left,…

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 Hibbs v Police

Details

AGLC: Hibbs v Police [2014] NZHC 910
Case: [2014] NZHC 910
Decision Date: 6 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Christopher Hibbs appeals his conviction for wilful damage under the Summary Offences Act 1981, following a decision by His Honour, Judge Neave, on 20 December 2013. The appeal hinges on two main issues: whether the District Court Judge wrongfully excluded veracity evidence and whether the evidence was insufficient to prove that Hibbs intentionally or recklessly damaged the telephone. The incident arose from a family dispute where Hibbs, after moving out of his mother’s house, stored equipment in his sister Jessica Prisk’s garage. When Tony Johnston, his mother's partner, removed some of these items, Hibbs, accompanied by a friend, confronted Johnston at the Prisk residence. Upon discovering that many of his items were missing, Hibbs threw the landline telephone to the ground, breaking it.

The District Court Judge found Hibbs guilty based on the testimony of Jessica Prisk, corroborated by her father and a neighbour. Hibbs' appeal contends that the Judge erred by not allowing evidence that Jessica had previously given false evidence in an affidavit. Additionally, Hibbs argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove intent or recklessness. The court found that the Judge did not exclude the veracity evidence but instead made a preliminary assessment that it was not substantially helpful under the Evidence Act 2006. The court also held that the evidence from Jessica, her father, and the neighbour sufficiently supported the charge of wilful damage, making the proposed veracity evidence unnecessary and potentially prejudicial.

The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to prove that Hibbs either intentionally or recklessly damaged the telephone. The decision affirms the conviction and the District Court’s assessment of the evidence.

Orders