Hynes v Police - [2021] NZHC 1984

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2020-419-68

[2021] NZHC 1984

BETWEEN
PETER ALFRED HYNES

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 30 March 2021

Appearances:

Appellant in person

A S C Alcock for Respondent

Judgment:

3 August 2021

JUDGMENT OF PAUL DAVISON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 August 2021 at 12:00 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Hamilton

HYNES v POLICE [2021] NZHC 1984 [3 August 2021]

Introduction

[1] Peter Alfred Hynes (the appellant) appeals the decision of Judge A S Menzies delivered in the District Court at Hamilton on 1 July 2020 finding him guilty and convicting him on three charges1, namely: male assaults female;2 assault with a weapon;3 and assault with intent to injure.4 Mr Hynes represented himself at his appeal and before the District Court. At his Judge-alone trial in the District Court he declined to enter pleas to the charges, and consequently the trial proceeded on the basis of deemed not guilty pleas.

[2]The appellant advances six grounds of appeal. They are:

1. I was not given a fair trial and was denied a McKenzie friend and was supplied a lawyer instead. Witnesses of the prosecution gave false evidence.

2. I’ve had a total of 31 Court Hearings, including 4 trials from 02/10/2018
– 24/06/2020.

3. I was offered a bargain by Police Prosecution, that they would withdraw 2 of the charges, if I pleaded Guilty to “Male assaults Female.” I denied offer. At the Trial – 24/06/20, I was convicted of “Male assaults female” only. I was found guilty from the date of the offer.

4. I was denied the right to present my defence of Trespass and self-defence at the trial.

5. I was denied the right to examine the witnesses for the prosecution. Bill of Rights Act, s 25…

6. Primary legal argument uncontested.

Background

[3]The following is a summary of the evidence heard by the District Court.

[4] The charges brought against the appellant arose from events occurring on 25 September 2018. The Police alleged that on that day the appellant went on to a neighbour’s property several doors along the road from his house, to retrieve his dog which had run away. The police alleged that when the appellant caught the dog, which

1      Police v Hynes [2020] NZDC 12812.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 194(b); maximum penalty imprisonment not exceeding two years.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 202C; maximum penalty imprisonment not exceeding five years.
4      Crimes Act 1961, s 193; maximum penalty imprisonment not exceeding three years.

was a young puppy, he punched it in the head and kicked it. The dog was squealing loudly. This conduct was witnessed by the owner of the property (the daughter) and her mother who was visiting (the mother). The two women called out to the appellant to stop what he was doing to the puppy. The prosecution case was that the appellant reacted to this by abusing…

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 Hynes v Police

Details

AGLC: Hynes v Police [2021] NZHC 1984
Case: [2021] NZHC 1984
Decision Date: 3 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Peter Alfred Hynes appeals his conviction in the District Court at Hamilton for three charges: male assault on a female, assault with a weapon, and assault with intent to injure. The appellant argues that he did not receive a fair trial, that he was denied a McKenzie friend and was instead given a lawyer, that he was offered a bargain by the police that he did not accept, that he was not allowed to present his defence of trespass and self-defence at trial, and that he was denied the right to examine prosecution witnesses. The appeal was heard in the High Court at Hamilton. The High Court dismissed the appeal and found that the appellant had not shown that his trial was unfair or that the Judge erred in any of the respects he alleged. The appellant was not denied a fair trial, and he was given the opportunity to put his case to the prosecution witnesses. The appellant did not advance the defence of self-defence or trespassing during the trial, and the Judge was justified in concluding that the charges were proven. The appellant was not denied the right to examine prosecution witnesses, and he cross-examined them. The High Court found that there was no breach of the appellant's right to be tried without undue delay, and dismissed the appeal.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal is dismissed.

Orders