Knuckley v Police - [2017] NZHC 2712

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI-2017-443-27 [2017] NZHC 2712

BETWEEN
PHILIP FREE KNUCKEY

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 31 October 2017

Counsel:

J Hannam for Appellant
J E Bourke for Crown

Judgment:

6 November 2017

JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J

[1] Mr Knuckey faced trial on 16 charges relating to violence against his then partner, firearms and minor drugs possession.

[2] At the commencement of his trial before Judge Harrop in the New Plymouth

District Court, Mr Knuckey pleaded guilty to four of those charges:

(a) unlawful possession of a sawn-off single barrel shotgun and ammunition; and

(b) possession of cannabis; and

(c) unlawful possession of 10 rounds of nine millimetre ammunition for a

Luger pistol.

KNUCKEY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 2712 [6 November 2017]

[3] Mr Knuckey was then discharged at the end of the prosecution case in relation to possession of a butterfly knife with intention to injure as there was no evidence to support the charge.

[4] Eleven charges then went to trial and Mr Knuckey was convicted in relation to eight of them as follows, in date order:1

• 11 May 2016 – threatening to kill the complainant (CRN 1807); and using a firearm in committing an imprisonable offence namely threatening to kill the complainant (CRN 1808).

• 3 June 2016 – threatening to kill (CRN 1811); and male assaults female

(CRN 1812).

• 11 June 2016 – assault on the complainant using a baton as a weapon

(CRN 1531).

• 27 November 2016 – assaulting the complainant using a pistol as a weapon (CRN 2986); unlawful possession of a firearm (pistol) (CRN 2987); and breach of protection order (CRN 2989).

[5] Judge Harrop sentenced Mr Knuckey to a total sentence of four years nine months’ imprisonment with respect to those charges and the four charges to which he had already pleaded guilty. No real issue is taken with sentence. The appeal is essentially a conviction appeal with a sentence appeal to allow for adjustment to final sentence if the conviction appeal is partially successful.

The judgment

[6] At the outset, the Judge acknowledged Mr Knuckey’s admission that he had threatened to kill in numerous text messages. Mr Knuckey said they were not to be taken seriously. Mr Knuckey said that was simply the way he expressed himself in

texts. Mr Knuckey acknowledged only one assault on the complainant but this was not covered in any of the charges.

[7] The Judge then dealt briefly with the question of standard and burden of proof. He reminded himself of the tripartite responsibility where, as in this case, the defendant gives evidence. He reminded himself also that each charge is a separate trial. He acknowledged further in this case the relationship between Mr Knuckey and the complainant was characterised by extensive methamphetamine use, and he recorded the position as follows:

Self-evidently [the complainant’s] admitted methamphetamine use during this period and indeed during the incidents gives rise to a real question…

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 Knuckley v Police

Details

AGLC: Knuckley v Police [2017] NZHC 2712
Case: [2017] NZHC 2712
Decision Date: 6 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Knuckley v Police involved an appeal by Philip Free Knuckley against his convictions and sentence for multiple charges relating to violence against his partner, possession of firearms, and drug possession. The appeal was heard by the High Court of New Zealand at New Plymouth, with the judgment delivered by Williams J on November 6, 2017. The legal issues in this case centered on the reliability of the complainant's evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, and the admissibility of new evidence presented on appeal.

Williams J considered the grounds of appeal, which included arguments that the complainant's evidence was unreliable due to her methamphetamine use at the time she gave her police statement, that the trial judge made findings not supported by the evidence, and that new evidence existed that undermined the complainant's credibility. The court applied the principles established in R v Owen, emphasizing that the appellate court's role is to review, not to substitute its view of the evidence. The court found that the complainant's evidence, while influenced by methamphetamine use, was corroborated by other evidence and was therefore reliable. The court also held that the trial judge's findings were supported by the evidence and that the new evidence presented on appeal was neither fresh nor cogent enough to warrant consideration.

Williams J concluded that the appeal against both the conviction and the sentence must be dismissed. The court upheld the trial judge's assessment of the evidence and found no basis to interfere with the conviction or the sentence imposed. The decision reaffirmed the principle that appellate courts should not lightly interfere with the factual findings made by trial judges, especially where those findings are supported by the evidence.

Orders