Mr Kreegher was charged and, following a jury trial before Judge Davidson in the District Court, was found guilty of charges of kidnapping,[1] aggravated robbery,[2] wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm[3] and arson.[4] He was sentenced to eight and a half years’ imprisonment.[5] He appeals against conviction and sentence.
[1]Crimes Act 1961, s 209(b). The maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.
[2]Section 235(b). The maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.
[3]Section 188(1). The maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.
[4]Section 267(2)(a). The maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.
[5]R v Kreegher [2019] NZDC 25842 [Sentencing judgment].
Three grounds of appeal are raised against the conviction:
(a)The verdict was unreasonable because there was insufficient evidence of Mr Kreegher’s guilt.
(b)The prosecutor misdirected the jury by inviting them to consider that the evidence did not exclude Mr Kreegher’s involvement and that Mr Kreegher did not have a counternarrative.
(c)The Judge wrongly cautioned the jury about the reliability of the complainant’s identification evidence when that evidence favoured the defence insofar as it did not identify Mr Kreegher.
The sentence is appealed on the basis that the starting point was too high and insufficient credit was given for Mr Kreegher’s personal circumstances.
Background
In the early hours of the morning of 11 October 2016 the complainant, Mr Singh, drove to Life City Church in Wainuiomata to meet a Ms Reti-Kaukau. She resided at emergency housing at the Church at the time. Mr Singh picked her up and took her to an address in Petone. During the journey Ms Turner, an associate of Mr Kreegher, contacted Mr Singh via cellphone details obtained from Ms Reti‑Kaukau. Ms Turner asked Mr Singh to return to the Church to give her some money. Mr Singh returned at around 3.30 am and Ms Turner got into his car. As Mr Singh began driving, a silver Mitsubishi vehicle pulled out in front of his vehicle, blocking its path. Mr Kreegher’s mother owns the silver car, which was kept at the Church. The car was regularly used by Mr Kreegher. Mr Singh gave evidence that two men with partially disguised faces approached and entered his car. One of them was described as having distinctive tattoos on his left arm and was larger than the other man. The Crown…
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 Kreegher v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Kreegher v R [2021] NZCA 22
Case
[2021] NZCA 22
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Codey Kreegher appeals against his conviction for kidnapping, aggravated robbery, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and arson, as well as against his sentence of eight and a half years’ imprisonment. Kreegher submits that the verdict was unreasonable because there was insufficient evidence of his guilt; the prosecutor misdirected the jury by inviting them to consider that the evidence did not exclude his involvement and that he did not have a counternarrative; and the Judge wrongly cautioned the jury about the reliability of the complainant’s identification evidence when that evidence favoured the defence. The sentence is appealed on the basis that the starting point was too high and insufficient credit was given for his personal circumstances. The Court of Appeal declines the application for leave to adduce fresh evidence. The appeal against conviction is dismissed. The appeal against sentence is allowed, with the sentence of eight years and six months’ imprisonment being quashed and replaced with a sentence of seven years and seven months’ imprisonment.