Hikaka-Beattie v The King - [2023] NZCA 480

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA310/2023
[2023] NZCA 480

BETWEEN	SHAYDEN COLE HIKAKA-BEATTIE Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Cooper P, Palmer and Jagose JJ
Counsel:	O S Winter for Applicant S R Lamb for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	4 October 2023 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to bring a second appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Jagose J)

After judge-alone trial before Judge Northwood in the District Court at Palmerston North on 23 August 2022,[1] Shayden Hikaka-Beattie was convicted of using a firearm against an enforcement officer (x 2),[2] kidnapping,[3] failing to stop (x 2),[4] and dangerous driving (x 2).[5] The Judge imposed concurrent sentences, capped by six years and three months’ imprisonment for the firearm offences.[6] Grice J dismissed Mr Hikaka-Beattie’s appeal against his convictions.[7]
[1]R v Hikaka-Beattie [2022] NZDC 16242 [District Court conviction decision].
[2]Crimes Act 1961, s 198A(1).
[3]Section 209.
[4]Land Transport Act 1998, ss 52A(1)(a)(ii), (5), (6) and 114(2).
[5]Section 35(1)(b).
[6]R v Hikaka-Beattie [2023] NZDC 3208 at [50]–[51].
[7]Hikaka-Beattie v R [2023] NZHC 985 [High Court conviction appeal] at [97].
Mr Hikaka-Beattie now seeks leave to bring a second appeal against his convictions, effectively only against the firearm convictions. Mr Winter would argue on appeal that the evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt the object presented by Mr Hikaka-Beattie was a firearm. Accordingly, those convictions amount to a miscarriage of justice justifying his second appeal.
We may not grant leave for a second appeal unless satisfied the appeal involves a matter of general or public importance, or a miscarriage of justice may have occurred or may occur unless the appeal is heard.[8] An appeal is unlikely to give rise to an issue of general or public importance unless it raises an issue of general principle or of general importance in the administration of the criminal law, including one that has broad application beyond the circumstances of the particular case.[9] By “miscarriage of justice” it is meant that something has gone wrong with the trial which put at risk a more favourable outcome for Mr Hikaka-Beattie or meant that the trial was unfair or a nullity.[10] The threshold is high; not every error will amount to a miscarriage of justice.[11]
[8]Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 237(2).
[9]Cancian v Tauranga City Council [2023] NZCA 257 at [7] citing McAllister v R [2014] NZCA 175, [2014] 2 NZLR 764 at [36].
[10]Criminal Procedure Act, s 232(4); and R v Sungsuwan [2005] NZSC 57, [2006] 1 NZLR 730 at [110].
[11]Otis v Police [2019] NZCA 231 at [4] citing McAllister v R, above n 10, at [38].
Mr Hikaka-Beattie’s application for leave essentially is to contest the evidential foundation for the object he presented to police being a firearm as defined in s 2 of the Arms Act 1983. Specifically, Mr Winter would argue on appeal “[t]he area…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hikaka-Beattie v The King and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] NZCA 480
Decision Date: 4 October 2023 at 11.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Shayden Hikaka-Beattie has sought leave to bring a second appeal against his convictions, which were imposed by Judge Northwood in the District Court at Palmerston North after a judge-alone trial. The applicant was convicted of using a firearm against an enforcement officer, kidnapping, failing to stop, and dangerous driving. Hikaka-Beattie's appeal against his convictions was dismissed by Grice J. The applicant now seeks leave to bring a second appeal against his convictions, essentially focusing on the firearm convictions. The applicant's counsel argues that the evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the object presented by the applicant was a firearm, and thus the convictions amount to a miscarriage of justice.

The Court was required to decide whether the application for leave to bring a second appeal involved a matter of general or public importance or whether a miscarriage of justice might have occurred or may occur unless the appeal was heard. The Court needed to assess whether the proposed appeal raised an issue of general principle or general importance in the administration of the criminal law, and whether the trial was unfair or a nullity. The Court also had to consider whether the application for leave was presented in a manner that demonstrated a miscarriage of justice.

The Court found that there was nothing in the proposed appeal involving any matter of general or public importance. The Court also found that there was no miscarriage of justice and that the trial was not unfair or a nullity. The Court noted that the trial Judge had an evidential basis to infer that the object presented by the applicant was a firearm. The Court concluded that the applicant's proposed appeal did not involve a matter of general or public importance and did not present a miscarriage of justice. The Court dismissed the application for leave to bring a second appeal.

The Court dismissed the application for leave to bring a second appeal.

Orders