Hunter v The Queen - [2019] NZCA 363

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA141/2019
[2019] NZCA 363

BETWEEN	SHANE ARRON HUNTER Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	13 June 2019
Court:	Brown, Whata and Moore JJ
Counsel:	J W Mackey for Appellant A J Ewing for Respondent
Judgment:	15 August 2019 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

BThe appeal against sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Whata J)

Mr Hunter was found guilty on two charges of assault with intent to injure and two charges of male assaults female. He appeals against conviction. His two primary grounds of appeal are:
(a)The charges were overinflated; and
(b)The jury’s verdict was unreasonable and the jury was biased against him.
Mr Hunter also appeals against his sentence of four months’ home detention.[1]

The alleged facts

[1]R v Hunter [2019] NZDC 5398.

Mr Hunter’s daughter, Chanelle Smith, returned home having spent the night out. She was called into Mr Hunter’s bedroom and they argued. He is said to have punched her in the face multiple times in the bedroom. He is then said to have punched her multiple times on her leg and told her to go upstairs to her bedroom. This was then followed by Mr Hunter grabbing her arm and punching her while she was in the stairwell. He is then said to have strangled her. The Police were called. They found Chanelle on the roof.

The charges

Mr Hunter was charged with three charges of assault with intent to injure and two charges of male assaults female. Charge 1 concerns the first punch in the bedroom. Charge 2 is a representative charge relating to the multiple punches in the bedroom. The alleged punches to the complainant’s leg comprise Charge 3. Charge 4, another representative charge, relates to the punching in the stairwell. Charge 5 relates to the alleged strangling.

The trial

The Crown opened its case to the jury claiming that Mr Hunter carried out a prolonged violent attack against the complainant. This narrative was broadly supported by Chanelle’s DVD interview statement, but she did not come up to brief at trial. As the Crown put it to the jury in closing — “You might not think she remembers much at all.” She did however recall a punch to the head and punches to her leg. The Crown also referred to evidence of bruising to her leg, a sore right face, and a cut lip. It also referred to the complainant’s statement to the police in which she referred to multiple punches and to propensity evidence of similar violent behaviour by Mr Hunter toward women. The Crown said Mr Hunter was not to be believed, that he was a reluctant witness who had committed this type of violence previously. It also said that Ms Hunter, Mr Hunter’s sister, deliberately tried to obstruct her niece from giving evidence and was trying to help her brother, and that she…

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 Hunter v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hunter v The Queen [2019] NZCA 363
Case: [2019] NZCA 363
Decision Date: 15 August 2019 at 11.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Shane Arron Hunter appeals against his conviction and sentence on several charges, including assault with intent to injure and male assaults female. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand dismissed both the appeal against conviction and the appeal against sentence. The appellant argues that the charges were overinflated and that the jury's verdict was unreasonable and biased against him. Additionally, he appeals against his sentence of four months' home detention.

The court rejected the appellant's arguments regarding the charges. The charges laid by the Crown broadly mirrored the allegations made by the complainant in her interview statement. Although the evidence of physical injury was sparse and contestable, there was a sufficient basis for the charges. The case for the Crown evolved naturally in line with the evidence presented at trial. The court also dismissed the appellant's claims regarding the verdict's unreasonableness and jury bias. The court found that the jury's question and the Judge's response demonstrated the jury's careful approach to the evidence, including the exculpatory evidence of the appellant's sister.

Regarding the sentence, the court found that the four months' home detention corresponded to an eight-month sentence of imprisonment. A reduction of one month of home detention adequately corresponded to the time spent in pre-trial custody. Thus, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand dismissed both the appeal against conviction and the appeal against sentence. The appellant's arguments regarding overinflated charges, unreasonable verdict, and jury bias were rejected. The court found the sentence to be appropriate, considering the time spent in pre-trial custody.

Orders