Hill v Police - [2024] NZHC 509

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI 2024-463-000061

[2024] NZHC 509

BETWEEN
ALAN JOHN HILL

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 21 November 2024

Appearances:

T Condor & J McNally for the Appellant (via VMR) E O’Brien for the Respondent

Judgment:

16 December 2024

Reissued:

3 February 2025

JUDGMENT OF TAHANA J

[Appeal against conviction]

This judgment was delivered by me on 16 December 2024 at 1.00pm and
re-delivered by me on 3 February 2025 in accordance with Criminal Procedure Rules 2012, r 1.6.

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Pollett Legal, Tauranga Holland Beckett, Tauranga

HILL v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [Appeal against conviction] [2024] NZHC 509 [16 December 2024]

Introduction

[1] Mr Hill appeals against his convictions on one charge of assault on a person in a family relationship1 and one charge of assault with a weapon2 after a judge-alone trial before I D R Judge Cameron.3 Mr Hill was convicted and discharged on each charge.4

[2] Mr Hill appeals his convictions on the ground that the following evidence was available to trial counsel but was not led at trial:

(a)evidence from Mr Hill’s daughter about the complainant allegedly having previously acted aggressively towards Mr Hill;

(b)evidence from Mr Hill that he told his counsel that the layout of the rooms where the incidents occurred was not as the complainant had alleged; and

(c)medical evidence in relation to Mr Hill’s medical conditions.

[3] In support of his appeal, Mr Hill has sworn an affidavit and filed an affidavit from his daughter. On appeal, Mr Hill asks the Court to consider that evidence.

[4] The key issue on appeal is whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred because the evidence was not called at the trial.

Charges

[5] The charges relate to two incidents, one that occurred on 11 May 2022 and the other on 20 May 2022. At the time, Mr Hill was aged 76. He and the complainant had met in China and started a relationship. The complainant moved to New Zealand in 2018 to live with Mr Hill at his home in Tauranga.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 194A.
2      Section 202C.
3      Police v Hill [2023] NZDC 22534.
4      Police v Hill [2024] NZHC 11013.

[6] Mr Hill walks with the help of a walking stick. He has cancer and limited mobility. It was common ground that by May 2022, the relationship had soured and there was tension in the house where Mr Hill and the complainant lived with Mr Hill’s adult son who has a mental health disability. Mr Hill’s adult son was present at the time of the 20 May 2022 incident.

[7] It was alleged that on 11 May 2022, Mr Hill had punched the complainant after an altercation because the complainant had taken photos of Mr Hill’s online conversation with another woman.

[8] As to the second incident on 20 May 2022, there is a video that was…

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 Hill v Police

Details

AGLC: Hill v Police [2024] NZHC 509
Case: [2024] NZHC 509
Decision Date: 16 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Hill v Police concerns the conviction of Alan John Hill on two charges of assault, one on a person in a family relationship and another of assault with a weapon, stemming from incidents on 11 May 2022 and 20 May 2022. Mr Hill appeals against his convictions, arguing that the trial counsel's failure to call certain evidence constituted a miscarriage of justice. This evidence included allegations of prior aggressive behaviour by the complainant, a differing account of the layout of the house where the incidents occurred, and additional medical evidence regarding Mr Hill's physical condition. The court needed to determine whether the non-disclosure of this evidence led to a miscarriage of justice and whether the new evidence could have reasonably resulted in a finding of not guilty.

The court considered whether the new evidence could have affected the outcome of the trial, focusing on the nature of the evidence and its potential relevance. Regarding the complainant's prior conduct, the court noted that the video evidence was clear and did not require additional interpretation. The video showed Mr Hill advancing with his walking stick towards the complainant, which the court found to be unambiguous evidence of aggression. The court also concluded that the medical evidence did not offer materially different information from that presented at trial, and the video's clarity meant that further evidence was unnecessary. The court found that the failure to lead evidence regarding the layout of the house did not affect the outcome because no specific new evidence was presented to show how it could have changed the trial's result.

The court found that the new evidence did not present a real risk of a miscarriage of justice because the video's clear depiction of Mr Hill's actions did not require additional interpretation. The court held that the video evidence was sufficient to support the Judge's findings, and the unambiguous parts of the video did not indicate that Mr Hill's conduct was in self-defence. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against conviction was dismissed, and Mr Hill's convictions were upheld.

Orders