Huritu v Police

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA640/2019
[2020] NZCA 208

BETWEEN	CODY HURITU Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	24 February 2020
Court:	Clifford, Simon France and Lang JJ
Counsel:	N P Chisnall and N T C Batts for Applicant E J Hoskin for Respondent
Judgment:	2 June 2020 at 3.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A Leave to bring a second appeal against conviction is granted.

BWe direct the appeal be set down for an oral hearing before a Permanent Court, time allowed half a day.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

Mr Huritu faced charges of assaulting his partner, breaching a protection order and breaching his prison release conditions. He pleaded guilty to the charge of breaching his prison release conditions but defended the other two charges. Mr Huritu was found guilty on both charges following a Judge-alone trial before Judge Cooper on 1 August 2019.[1]
[1]Police v Huritu [2019] NZDC 15221.
Mr Huritu appealed to the High Court against both those convictions on the basis that the Judge had wrongly admitted a written statement made by the complainant, his partner, when she failed to appear at the hearing. Those appeals against conviction were dismissed in a judgment delivered by Jagose J on 8 October 2019.[2]
[2]Huritu v Police [2019] NZHC 2560.
Mr Huritu applies for leave to advance a second appeal against those convictions to this Court. On 18 December 2019 this Court directed that the application for leave to appeal be determined together with the proposed appeal. We heard those matters on 24 February 2020.
Having considered the application for leave, the issues raised and existing authorities, we have determined that leave should be granted but that the appeal should be heard separately, by a Permanent Court.

Result

We grant Mr Huritu leave to bring a second appeal against conviction.
We direct the appeal be set down for an oral hearing before a Permanent Court, time allowed half a day.

Solicitors:
Haigh Lyon, Auckland for Applicant
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cody Huritu sought leave to bring a second appeal against his conviction for assaulting his partner and breaching a protection order, having already unsuccessfully appealed against the same convictions. The nature of the dispute was whether the Court of Appeal would grant Huritu leave to bring a second appeal against his conviction. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard the application on 24 February 2020. The legal issues for determination were whether the Court should grant Huritu leave to bring a second appeal and, if so, how the appeal should proceed. The Court concluded that leave should be granted but that the appeal should be heard separately, by a Permanent Court, with half a day allocated for the hearing.

The Court considered the application for leave, the issues raised, and existing authorities. The Court found that leave should be granted, as the application raised a significant question of law of general public importance. The Court also considered that the appeal should be heard separately by a Permanent Court, rather than together with the application for leave, in order to allow for a more thorough consideration of the issues. The Court noted that the appeal raised important questions about the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials and the proper approach to be taken when a complainant fails to appear. The Court concluded that these issues warranted a separate hearing by a Permanent Court, with sufficient time allocated for the parties to present their arguments and the Court to consider the evidence and submissions.

The Court granted Huritu leave to bring a second appeal against conviction. The Court directed that the appeal be set down for an oral hearing before a Permanent Court, with time allowed half a day. The Court also noted that the appeal would be heard by a different panel of judges than the one that heard the application for leave. The Court's decision ensures that Huritu has an opportunity to challenge his convictions before a full Court, with adequate time for the parties to present their cases and the Court to consider the issues in depth. The Court's decision also highlights the importance of ensuring that criminal trials are conducted fairly and that evidence is properly admitted and excluded where necessary.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established